Not what they meant, their principles are not at all self-evident, since if a statement can be rationally denied, it cannot be self-evident, and you can do that with every single thing they say. “We hold these truths to be self evident," does not mean that what they are about to say is true without proof, rather, it is an old-timey, polite way of saying, "if you don't accept this, go suck a lemon."
Yeah it’s too bad he never realized that the statement defeats itself. How did he come to that conclusion if there was an infinite regression behind it?
@@Dah_J To be on the right track, we have to realize that we are talking about two possibilities, either an infinite chain of causes or an absolute cause at the end of it. If the chain of causes is infinite, then it is absolutely impossible for something to happen due to infinite regression.
I am humbled with your explanation of the logical incoherence of the infinite regress. Your analogy of the cup of water has been a huge help for me, now I can (mostly) ditch the grim reaper paradox. Liked.
I actually can visualize and understand this. It's, in a manner of speaking, similar to "The Terminator" infinite regress. There (theoretically) was an "original" timeline. Where/When Sarah wasn't accosted by Kyle and T-800. She went on living her life until Judgement Day. She birthed John; albiet *another* father. John went on to set in motion the events that follow. With no beginning or _termination_ .
2:53 Is the cup metaphor faulty because of the necessity of having to pour the water from the cup one holds into the cup down the line? How can you empty the contents of your cup if the person down the line is emptying their cup? An infinite number of cups will spill their contents. How about a new metaphor? A bucket brigade?
The cup analogy doesn't work, because causality doesn't have to permeate down. It was always permeated. The second example with 1 and 0 straight up made no sense.
But also logically speaking you might as well make the following infinite argument: 1. If first 0, then first 1. 2. If second 0 and second 1, then third 0. 3. If third 0, then forth 0. 4. If forth 0, then fifth 0. 5. If fifth 0, then sixth 0. ... ∞. If infiniteth 0, then first 0. C. Therefore, if second 0 and second 1, then first 1. This is a valid and sound argument, If we were to apply any "0" to be false and any "1" to be true as suggested in this video.
@mahadahmedbaloc Gateway process and dmt experience and out body experience, all proved the existence of one all connected collective consciousness know as paradoxical immortal existence or god. That's the fundamental reason why in their experience, they're capable of telepathic communication and getting intuitive knowledges from the universe. And go to where/whenever them want to go in a instant. This can only happen when that existence is and part of so-called god at same time, it just like talking to oneself. Therefore infinite regression must exists.
This is all compelling, but infinite regress isn’t disproven. You assert that there has to be a beginning for there to be a fundamental truth, but you fail to explain why fundamental truth exists. Fundamental truth doesn’t exist, everything exists in context. Infinite regress is possible, because every cause has an effect, and every effect has a cause. It’s impossible for there to be one without the other, therefore, if there can be no beginning nor end, it can only be infinite regress. You’re not meeting the burden of proof here, it’s all predicated on the belief that “things have to have started somewhere” which is ridiculous.
A basic principle observed around us is that every effect has a cause. If this is the case then everything must have a predecessor. The problem with this statement is that this will cause us to result in infinite regression,which is not possible. For instance: Let there be Object 1 1 is caused by 2, which is caused by 3 which is caused......... (ad infinitum) Now lets reverse this cycle and try to reach from infinity to object 1 Object infinity causes object (inifnity - 1), object (inifnity - 1) causes (infinity-2)........ The problem is we will never reach object 1 as there is an infinite number of causes before reaching the number 1 (infinite regression). Therefore there must be one thing which was not caused by anything before it or after it . Something which has no predecessor, and ignited all the causes. We call that thing "God" Is this infinite regression possible ? Do you think this argument is fallicious?
Think this might be a misunderstanding of the infinite. You also seem to assume that there was initial cause because of the direction of the travel. You're posing the question can something from an infinite distance from where I am standing come to me. But the true analogy is can something move from where you are standing for an infinite distance. You can very fairly reject the idea as not something you can accept, and the analogies you gave could help someone decide to do that, but you didn't provide logical proof. The idea of infinity is totally alien for humans and really beyond imagination of comprehension. You can use the concept of it correctly but never can experience it.
Could you explain why an infinite regress is impossible in layman's terms? I simply don't understand the vocabulary and there isn't a whole lot of information on the topic of infinite regression on the internet. I don't understand in the analogy why ONLY the first cup would have water in it, so without a first cup you cannot have water. Please explain thanks
He's saying imagine if the water in cup 1 was poured into it from cup 2, and cup 2 got it's water from cup 3, then this would go on forever.Because any cup number you get to, e.g. cup 100 got it's water from cup 101. and so on.. Qnly does the water have to come from another cup? Because he is talking about the reverse of how things seem to cause things when we look at our world.
An infinite thing means you can't reach the end. If you had infinite causes, and you went to the middle, you can't reach the beginning or the end. If that's the case, you can say that there is no end, which is wrong because we know ____ to be true. For example, we exist, so there cannot be infinite causes before us
3:55 There is no such thing an "infinite amount" or adding such a amount. Infinity is the notion of addition without a end, that means +1 ad infinitum.
It seems to me, correct me if I am wrong, that you are describing the way in which the Coherence Theory of Truth is used to determine the validity of a proposition to arrive at a premise to reach a conclusion. Through not a single proposition, but truth is derived from a whole series of propositions related to the one, and individual premises or conclusions inferred by their coherence with the whole. So D (the original proposition) must then cohere to C (premise) then cohere to B (premise) then cohere to A (premise) and all be coherent and related to the original proposition to be regarded as truth. And yes this does seem tedious and infinitely regressed! But what about the the Correspondence Theory of Truth that is used to determine truth by the actual state of affairs and how that truth relates to them. So in your example of the conclusion that a cat is sitting on the chair, we would examine the state you described, a cat sitting on a chair, by first the truth of a state of affairs in which a cat and the chair exists, and next the truth of the cat as related to the chair by virtue of sitting upon it. And that is as far as we go in determining the validity of the conclusion that "a cat is sitting on the chair" and no need for the infinite regress. I tend to think this is more empirical, but limited to accurately interpreting and defining objective reality. And, of course, there are the other theories of truth which can be used as well such as the Pragmatic Theory of Truth, the Consensus Theory of Truth, the Deflationary Theory of Truth, the Redundancy Theory of Truth, the Semantic Theory of Truth, Kripke's Theory of Truth, and the Model theory and Proof theory which are more for mathematical truths. Each one of these might be used for proper epistemic justification, although perhaps with varying degrees of truth value. (For instance, I believe the Consensus Theory of Truth is simply the truth of the herd and history has shown how wrong that can be!) Yet none of them leading to absolute truth because, personally, I don't think that exists because relativity has a way of rearing it's ugly head in unexpected ways. Even if you claimed that water freezes at 32 degrees, or boils at 100 degrees, there are variables which alter that, like altitude, and it becomes a relative truth. And of course the whole method of testing temperature is based on a uniform sequence of numbers, but that sequence could be any set of numbers as long as it provides consistency in measurement. But absolute truth is, of course, debatable and I have my notes and arguments already prepared! I know each Theory of Truth has their own pros and cons, but I felt you were perhaps describing only the Coherence Theory of Truth and how it is used to determine the validity of statements, propositions and conclusions specifically, and not necessarily alternate methods of arriving at truth, such as the Correspondence Theory of Truth which may not necessarily lead to the infinite regress you discuss. Again, correct me if I am wrong.
Basically logically everything has a beginning. Within human logic. Within our own constricted mind of knowledge understanding and imagination. Therefore it is impossible for something not to have a beginning and not to always exist.
Hmm. It is possible that the conclusion is true but the premises are wrong. So I don't get it when you say that if the conclusion is true then some premises must be "holding the water." But I think the point is that if even a single premise is not justified the conclusion is not justified to be believed.
I don't think he said that, he only said that if some of the premises have truth values in themselves, then they aren't dependent on the previous alone. Otherwise you are correct, a conclusion may be true, and be argued from a completely meaningless set of premises.
Just for clarification, this is not an argument that a creator of the universe exists, it is that a creator MIGHT exist, it could be true and it could be not and i personally don't know and i don't think anyone really does
The problem with offering an "intuitive" description of infinites is that they are always guaranteed to be faulty imo. You can have an infinite number of 0s AND 1. an infinite number of 0s PLUS 1. So the concern might be redefined as "when did the 1 get added to the series of 0s" but that would be begging the question, surely?! Maybe it was never added. Maybe it was always a part of the series. This series is, and has always been , a series containing 1. The current "location" of the 1 might be discrete only by virtue of the perspective of the observer. I find it interesting that we can't conceive of infinites despite being constantly surrounded by them. Everything you have ever experienced has causal connections that span farther backwards than the lifetime of the planet you live on. It extends further forward and backwards than you can fathom. I feel like saying "there must be a start" is less a statement of undeniable truth, amd more an axiomatic statement based on human perspective. We struggle with the concept of infinites, imo, not because it is somehow fundamentally flawed, but because we are not infinite.
"Only if" and "because" are different logical operators and cannot be treated the same. D because C says that D is true if C is true. C may be false and D may be still true. "Only if" implies that if C is false, then D is false. If C is true, that doesn't say anything then about D.
Mill Bill You are certainly right, but he isn't talking about that, but he doesn't say that the infinite regression means the conclusion is necessarily wrong, he only means that it cannot come from the premises set as an infinite regression.
@@Imheretohelpnhavefun It can. It is called transcendental induction in mathematics. A very useful tool. Infinities are not simple. One has to be very careful. This video provides a rhetorical not logical argument against the existence of infinite regress. But this doesn't mean it is impossible. And in fact it is possible (transcendental induction). The problem is that typical philosophers don't understand infinities. They didn't catch up. Their argumentation is more rhetorical than logical. And this is a symptom of that.
And that's why children as well as philosophers and scientists keep asking: why, why, why. Because at some pooh you'll reach the "first cup of water" on which the premises are based. Some people argue indeed that you could just keep asking on forever and that you can't know things for sure ever and stuff being relative. But they probably had a vd experience with exploring premises (parents shutting their inquiries down) before they could reach the base ("just because I said so, now shut up") and the curiosity and logical derision is discouraged.
Something had to start the ball rolling. Cause-and-effect. This is why I believe in intelligent design because I don't think that something could come from nothingness.
Normal sense of cause and effect is illusion after all, self projection is a better term. Self projection must be a paradox, and it's the same to one unity collective consciousness. So the infinite regression is inevitable. The head must bite the tail. In order to do that, the whole structure may not like what you imagine. At some layer of the structure, one may able to aware all possible awareness at same time.
Good presentation; I've watched it a couple of times before... But I just realized prior to watching this video again, that (as some people want to deny objective Truth), true knowledge itself is impossible without the existence of objective Truth to anchor to (ie even the supposed education of such people who deny truth is invalidated, and their so-called "knowledge" is simply reduced to mere babbling opinion without any real weight of authority; by their own assertion of denying truth, they have just acknowledged that nothing they have to say means anything, and therefore, we really have no good reason to listen to them or believe them).
Hey Remy... I behold the Truth to be a participant in this account. Very well said! “Thou canst not recognize not-being (for this is impossible), nor couldst thou speak of it, for thought and being are the same thing.” / Parmenides
If there is one cup full of water there and an infinite number of cups behind it than it doesn't matter how many times you move the water; there will always be an infinite number of empty cups before it. There will be a finite number of cups afterwords which is equal to the number of times you moved the water.
Zeno's arrow bro. The water can't even get to whichever cup you think it is in. It would always have to travel an infinite number of cups to get to the next cup if there are really an infinite number of cups in the chain.
@@agadirand4four347 i had a dream about this word ive never heard of. So i looked it up on youtube and this perfectly describes the abstract dream i was having.
i think you are talking about limits of knowledge and argumentation. and the fact that sound arguments and all math and science rely on definition and axioms.
An infinite regress is a problem only for a finite mind, not for the actual truth value. Self-evidence is just as much a problem for epistemology as an infinite regress; both are hiding the problem of faith.
@@ghollisjr Have you thought about it at all. All you have to you simple reasoning skills. If there were an infinite number of events that preceded right now, we could never arrive at this current event, because that means you would have had to completed an infinite series to arrive at this current event right now. But thats certainly illogical, you cant complete an infinite series, otherwise it wouldnt be infinite. There's also other reasons, if the series of past of events has no beginning and goes back infinitely, there will be no series of events at all, for there must be a first member in a series for the series to exist at all. So it's almost self evident that an infinite regression of temporal successive events is illogical and impossible. Not sure why you have an issue with that. I agree voting on it is not a good way to determine what is true. If you would like to make an argument for the possibility of completing an infinite series to arrive at this point,in time, I would be happy to hear it.
@@ghollisjr I am arguing from rationality, reason and reality. For you to say that there is no problem in completing an infinite series of past events, youre entitled to believe that if you want. Infinite past series of events is one that goes on forever, so to complete something that never ends is a contradiction. Let me ask you, if you went to a restaurant to order food, and there was an infinite (never ending)number of people standing in front of you to order, and one by one they ordered, would you ever get to order food How can you have an infinite number of marks or legders, wouldntyou have to get to the number that precedes infinity to actually reach an infinite number of anything. Xenos paradox is a case of potential infinites where you can cut things half and half and half forever, but at no point in time will you ever reach an infinite number of halves. Potential infinities exist in the way you can go on forever. Actual infinities do not exist. It is impossible to have an actually infinite number of anything quantifiable.
@@ghollisjr Here is another anology, if there was a sniper who was going to shoot needed to get his commanders permission to shoot, and that commander needed his commanders permission, and that commander needed his commanders permission and this process went back infinitely with no first commander would that sniper ever shoot?
@@ghollisjr No zenos paradox is certainly not a direct anology, You have a starting point and an end point, with an infinite regress there is no starting point. You never really answered my questions, If there was an infinite number(unlimited) of people standing in front of you in line to order food, and one by one they ordered would you ever order food. And the other anology I gave you was a sniper who needed confirmation to shoot from his commander, and that commander needed permission from his commander and that commander needed permission from his commander and that went backward ad infinitum forever, would the sniper ever shoot? The correct answer to this was no, the sniper would never shoot, because there is an infinite regress with no first commander, so I am not quite sure you really understood the point of the anology.
This is to do with realm of mind and thought. It's easy to get lost because our mind can create multiple realities within the mind. That is why in Indian cultures they called this world the world of maya or the world of illusion
this applies to the atheists question " where did god come from or who created god" the question itself is empty and doesn't qualify as a proper question, questions should lead you to specific results, asking a question that is based on an empty/illogical assumption will bear no fruit, and it'll only lead you into the infinite regress, the illogical assumption in the question above is that the creator and the created are ought to have the same restrictions and qualities which is stupid in and of itself, a carpenter and a wooden door is a good simple example for that.
@@code99k "That's not an illogical question. It's perfectly logical to ask who created God. You cannot answer this because your entire philosophy is flawed", the notion of god being created only leads to the entity that created god being created itself and so on, that is an infinite regress for you "The number of assumptions you need to make without proof, to get to fit the universe as God's creation is in itself huge. On top of that you are making another huge number of assumptions by claiming God is made up of different set of rules." can you point out to me the " number of assumptions" i made in my original comment ? where did i say god is made of different set of rules ? all i said was saying or using the same rules by which we're governed/made and applying it to god is illogical " What infinite regression means is there is no truth transmitted at the end of the chain if the truth is at the infinite beginning of the chain." and that is exactly what you arrive to if you "assumed" god has to be created or made, you'll never find the end of that chain, and finally as for the insults "Seriously you people need psy help." they have no affect at all, if anything only the ones with the weaker logic use it to try to get on the other person's nerves to get him or her to make a mistake.
@@code99k “infinite regress means there is no truth transmitted at the end of the chain if the truth is at the beginning of the chain” Are u denying that truth exists? Do you exist? Yes u do. That is a prime example of absolute truth which u cannot deny and here it is at this part of the “chain”, so how could it have come here if regress is truly infinite. If it was infinite (which its obviously not), that, by definition, would mean that there would be absolutely no starting point to the causal chain, therefore, we wouldn’t exist (unless u deny existence, which u can’t). If u believe in existence, logically, you believe that there was a start to the causal chain. “It’s perfectly logical to ask who created god” It might seem to be logical but it is really not if u are well versed in logic and/or philosophy. Here’s why, in order for anything to be created it has to be created by something eternal and uncreated, otherwise (if nothing is truly eternal) there would be nothing, and nothingness cannot create something. For example, the universe could not have created itself, because in order for it create itself, it had to have existed beforehand to do so. See the issue in this worldview? Therefore, the universe was created by something. This is applied to whatever you wanna believe created the universe (other universes, etc) except for god, because by definition, god is eternal and uncreated. Therefore, God is the only way the universe could exist, and the only way the causal chain could start. I really do hope u find the truth, and I mean that sincerely.
Lol the reason why people ask "Who created God?" is a response to teleological argument (or argument by design)... If anything that aforementioned argument is a setup for infinite regression, like why you assume human beings needed to be created in the first place? The logic goes both ways
@@_o__o there is a big problem, the assumption of causation only apply with in the universe.. God is treated as beyond the universe.. Universe itself doesn't have a cause or it cannot be proven that it need a cause.. Coz our logic is based on within the universe.. And all the ur answer comes up to fundamental problem of nothing.. U assume nothing is real.. But u cannot in anyway prove logically or anyway that pure nothingness exist.. Only conclusion is universe is eternal.. Universe exist not creator needed.. So the question of who created the universe is itself flawed
@@absurdist5938 well the universe is not eternal, have u heard of the big bang? Scientists have also discovered that in the future, the universe will cease to exist, just further proof that it is not eternal. Even if u want to argue that causation is only a part of the universe, then you’r making the argument that something can come from nothing and by nothing which is impossible since nothing has no properties and therefore cannot create anything so it is a flawed and contradictory argument. Another other option is that the universe created itself (or whatever particles came b4 created themselves) out of nothing, this viewpoint also has a contradiction since in order for the universe (or anything) to create itself out of nothing it would had have existed beforehand to do so. The only viable argument is the existence of an eternal and necessary being that created everything, otherwise you’d be left with absolute nothingness (without a god) but that is wrong as well since both u and I exist. The argument that logic doesn’t exist outside of the universe is weak. Logical facts such as bachelors are unmarried men and 2+2=4 are true no matter wgat (even if it is in a different universe) because it is within the term “bachelor’s” definition that he’s an unmarried man. As is the case with nothingness and its 0 properties, as is the case with a necessary existence (god). The argument that true nothingness does not exist, I believe, is true since there has to be a necessary existence (god). But if u deny a necessary and eternal existence then you would be stuck with the infinite regress fallacy.
also, not only do the soundness of an argument rely on the truth of the premise, but the validity of the arugment. this requires logical proof that mathematics can provide
It emphasizes the necessity of the existence of an initial cause, but first, that doesn’t land you anywhere near the conclusion of a God, and second, even if it did land you on the conclusion of a god, that still doesn’t land you anywhere near the conclusion of your particular god. I swear, it’s as if belief in god only makes people dumber.
@@alejandrovallejo4330 you made three claims here buddy. "but first, that doesn’t land you anywhere near the conclusion of a God" "second, even if it did land you on the conclusion of a god, that still doesn’t land you anywhere near the conclusion of your particular god." "I swear, it’s as if belief in god only makes people dumber." Can u provide evidence to support your claims? im not here to start a debate on the existence of God with you im just trying to learn and understand different POV.
@@trooperslayer5910 well, the first two are more vague rebuttals, and the third is more just an opinion/jab at religious people incapable of seeing other possible conclusions, but I’ll happily explain more in depth what I mean. OP insinuates that there must be an initial cause for the universe/existence. For arguments sake I implicitly conceded that indeed there must be an initial cause. However, my point is that even conceding that there must be an initial cause, that doesn’t mean the cause is automatically sentient, or a god, that is something that is not self evident in the conclusion of an initial cause and must be demonstrated after demonstrating that there must have been an initial cause. Furthermore, even if I conceded that an initial cause automatically implies that there is a god, OP would still have to demonstrate that said god conforms or matches the god of their religion/beliefs. So my statements were not claims that I have the solution, rather I was critiquing that through shitty logic, OP arrived prematurely and with no justification to their desired conclusion and that in my opinion they are unable to see the flaws in their logic due to their religious bias.
Theists say that infinite regression is impossible because because the chain cannot go on forever and thus it's impossible.But say that their God is true because he is eternal but that implies that he is infinite and has existed forever and thus they imply that the idea of Infinity and forever is possible.That means that an infinite regression is just as possible as the first cause because both rely on using infinity to explain themselves
Things in nature that begin to exsist require cause. What ever the cause is can't be of nature, and in order to set motion would have to choose. A supernatural thinking thing, or just God for short.
@@souzajustin19d Everything inside the known universe needs a cause to our knowledge.But we don't know if the laws of cause and effect which is a universal law of the universe applies to the universe itself.
@@PopeUrbanX "But we don't know if the laws of cause and effect which is a universal law of the universe applies to the universe itself." Do you have evidence that it does not? if not, then you have no reason to assume it does not.
@@souzajustin19d I never assumed whether it applied to the universe I said "we don't know" and that it's unlikely that we'll ever be able to know and thus to assume either of the options without evidence is baseless
@@PopeUrbanX Do you have evidence that natural laws do not apply to the universe? if not, then you have no reason to believe it. Its not complicated since we have plenty of evidence showing natural laws effecting the universe now. You need further evidence to prove the law were different back then. With no evidence, you have no reason to believe that it was.
Thank you for this. I asserted my belief that the universe is infinite and someone said that's an infinite regress. Is their accusation true? I would assume it is because I have no proof that the universe is infinite aside from not reaching the end of the universe (they were arguing there's an end to the universe). However we both can be wrong. And both have infinite regress since we don't know the answer to these assertions.
Steve, couldn't we dismiss something like the simulation hypothesis or Descartes brain in a tank hypothesis etc. with the infinite regress? Whereas you could always go back one higher being simulating the reality of the being below it ad infinitum.
Then what about the actions of God? Since God always could create one thing after another, then this premise requires that an infinite regress is at the very least possibble isnt it?
"no premise In the chain has its own truth value. Well that's false. We start at 1 truth value and we simply work our way back against multiple other truth values.
@@NightCrafted You also can have an infinite chain of steps to prove something. It is incredibly useful tool called transfinite induction in mathematics, which is precisely that. The claim that infinite regress is not possible is false. The arguments in this direction are rhetorical and fallacious.
@@NightCrafted In this video an "argument" (rhetorical not logical) against logical infinite regress was made. You even replied to a statement about the logical infinite regress and you used the language of logic "premise" not causality "cause". Logical infinite regress: transfinite induction in mathematics Causal infinite regress: Feynman path integral or Zeno's paradox.
@@tofu-munchingCoalition.ofChaos You are confusing continuity with causation. Zeno's paradox (or other arguments via continuity) is not a matter of causation. That is, a single instance within a continuity is not causal of the next instance. (It is in theory, but the division of moments is an accident of the initial cause). The motion of an arrow in of itself is a caused thing, and motion itself does not perpetuate the motion- only the first actor (the drawing of the bow) creates motion. Division among this is only an illusion. Zeno's paradox cannot be correct (obviously) because the conclusion is incorrect. The conclusion is incorrect because a premise is incorrect. The premise that each instances causes the next is incorrect. You also are not drawing the distinction between causal and modal. Causal is where the existence of something is dependent on the existence of another. Modal is referring to "howness" of a thing. What Zeno's paradox does is that it mixes the modality (the discrete after the arrow's firing) of the arrow's flight as being causal.
Is the kalam cosmological argument a sufferer of an infinite regress since the first premise states that everything that exists has a cause. Now doesn't that statement depend upon an observer witnessing every event that has happened in order to make the statement and conclude it's truth .
No, because the Kalam argument is an argument made by Asharis, which does not fit christian theology. If kalam argument was made to Christianity, it would mean that God has a beginning.
Infinite regress is possible. Philosophers should simply get over it. For example a proof by transfinite induction is such an infinite regress. One should be much more precise if one wants to logically prove something. You outlined that infinite regression is in contradiction with your intuition. But in this case it means your intuition is wrong.
As it caused misunderstanding in other discussions. The video talks about the logical infinite regress. Perhaps one could believe that there is something special about the causal structure (time) which forbids infinite regress. But this was not addressed in the video. And in fact there are (given the evidence at the moment) multiple occasions of infinite regressions in the causal structure. Logical infinite regress: transfinite induction in mathematics Causal infinite regress: Feynman path integral or Zeno's paradox. Again. Philosophy should accept this. The logical reasoning should be much more careful. Logic as a discipline is much more precise than this video would make you believe (on top of the conclusion being wrong). Philosophy lacks a scientific development into a modern scientific discipline at the moment. It is not caching up. It still is more rhetorical than logical or empirical in nature. And the "infinite regress"-argument is a symptom of this.
@@AchHadda You mean how can transfinite induction be proven (you can easily google that, but I will repeat it for you here)? _Let me restate the problem (induction claim):_ It is possible to conclude that a statement A(m) is true for all m in M (and M is an ordered set which is probably infinite) if you only know (induction step) that for all m in M A(m) is true *if* A(n) is true for all n in M smaller than m. _Transfinite induction:_ If M is a well-ordered set (meaning every non-empty set has a minimum), then the induction claim is true. Why? Let's suppose A(k) is false for at least one k in M. Then there is a smallest m in M for which A(m) is false. But then A(n) is true for all n smaller than m. But by assumption on A this implies that A(m) is true. But this is a contradiction to the choice of m. Hence our initial assumption that A(k) is wrong for one k in M is false. Or in other words A(k) is true for all k in M as claimed. _ordered co-complete properties_ Let me give you another example (closely connected to Zeno's paradox). Let us assume that M=[0,1] (the set of real numbers between 0 and 1 including the endpoints) with natural ordering. Let us assume that A is a infimum-co-complete property (meaning that if A(x) is false than A is false for the infimum of x for which A(x) is false). Then the induction hypothesis is true. Why? If A(x) is false for some x in M, then A(m) is false, where m is the infimum of all counter examples. But then A(n) is true for all n in M smaller than m. But by the induction step it follows again that A(m) is true (contradiction). But then our initial assumption is wrong and hence A(x) is true for all x in M.
@@AchHadda PS: Depending on the structural properties of the index set M and the structural properties of the claim A, it is possible that a induction step is enough to prove the statement for all instances. Mathematicians use this all the time. In mathematics infinities are incredibly helpful and perfectly defined. There are even statements about finite numbers which can only be proven (and this can be proven) by using infinities. For example: ruclips.net/video/uWwUpEY4c8o/видео.html and ruclips.net/video/oBOZ2WroiVY/видео.html PPS: Furthermore what do you mean infinities don't exist in our real world? For example the inverse of speed can be infinite (in a rest frame). Infinity is often only a matter of perspective. So perhaps you mean that there is only a finite amount of stuff? So there is no counting infinity in the real world (cardinal infinities)? But we simply don't know that. There could be infinitly many stars in the universe (vs. the observable universe). It is even more likely to be the case given various sources of empirical evidence (for example the cosmic microwave background or the existence of distant stars together with a positive cosmological constant).
Essentially the error in your argument is confusing justification with truth. Each statement in the chain of infinite regress is either true or false regardless if you, anyone or anything else can prove it to be so. What you're really talking about is a pragmatic consideration: Can an infinite regression be knowledge, justified truth? The way human beings solve this problem is through some kind of faith. We eventually get tired of asking questions and just accept some premise, calling it self-evident to assuage our wounded pride.
No it cannot be- if you had an infinite regress, and for example went into the middle of those infinite causes, you'd never reach the beginning or the end, by which you can conclude that we never existed. So an infinite regression cannot exist, not that it's the case that we simply accept it not to exist out of convenience
@@iruleandyoudont9 yes, but that doesn't apply to this case. By using Zeno's paradox as an argument against my statement is to imply that each moment is causal of another moment, whereas this is not really the case. Causes *subsist* via moments, but moments themselves are not causal
It's not clear to me that your analysis applies in all situations. For example, various mathematical procedures generate infinite regresses with no final result, yet they are considered meaningful. In logic, if I understand correctly. an infinite regress is a problem only if it is vicious (such as the paradox of the liar). Otherwise they do not seem to be self-contradictory and are therefore not invalid. But perhaps I am going beyond the focus of your presentation which I very much enjoyed.
@@darkdragonite1419 Your assumption that we start with true and work backwards is wrong. Yes we exist that is true, but how it is we came into existence cannot be proven without a non-contingent thing unless you assume that an infinite regression can occur
Thanks for posting this video. I agree that an infinite regression cannot by definition eventually terminate at an axiom (or even a set of axioms). But your two-fold conclusion reaches too far for me. The first part - that we cannot call an infinite regression true 4:18 - clearly implies that they must therefore be false. But really we have no reason to call them false, either. Binary logic works great for problems within its domain. The second part - that every truth must be derivable from axioms 4:30 - contradicts the incompleteness theorem. You cannot just declare the cups are empty because you cannot prove them full. That would be ... 'intellectual dismissal' ;)
Energy can’t be created or destroyed which means it’s always existed. That would be god otherwise you get infinite regress. So logically it would always have to exist.
well lets stick to the analogy of the metal chain, and lets imagine we have an infinitely long chain made out of perfect links. Does being infinitely long automatically break the chain? if not, then surely you can have a conclusion supported by infinite premises as long as they're all sound.
To the best of my understanding (I could be wrong), I think the issue is that the chain goes on infinitely. It’s not anchored to anything. It just a bunch of links that are tethered together with no foundation, no ending. You’ll never be able to pick up the chain an use it to lock up your bike, for example. You can’t use the chain to tie/hold anything because you can’t get to the end of the chain in order to have it be useful. Therefore it’s not a perfect chain because you can use it as a chain.
@@boboblueblue2 I can hold stuff with it though, I have one end of the chain right here in my hand. Its just that the other end is infinitely far away, but I can still attach my end of the chain to things.
@@tobak952 you say you can attach your end of the chain to things but what good does that do you? you still cannot effectively use it as the person you responded to had said previously
Suppose I needed a dollar to pay for a ticket to ride a bus home. I ask the person behind me in an infinitely long line of people waiting to ride the bus, to lend me a dollar. She says that she will lend me the dollar IF the person behind her will lend her a dollar. Every person in the infinitely long line does the same. Will I ever get the dollar? After an infinite time I will get my dollar, which by definition is never since infinity has no end. If you think about it, the dollar isn’t important in making the point, for it is just an arbitrary event. So there can not be an infinite number of events preceding any other event, or that event will never take place. Reading this argument is an event, and events can not take place if an infinite number of events precede it. Hence there must be a FINITE number of events before this event, otherwise it wouldn’t be occurring. Therefore the Universe has a finite age.
Wrong. Your analogy doesn’t work because the infinite number of events aren’t all unique. Eventually you will reach an event that is what you wanted or the same event where you ask for a dollar. You assume that each event is unique when it isn’t. There’s only a finite number of ways to rearrange matter. Given enough time you will reach a point that is a repeat of now.
Infinite regress is motion, like you draw a circle over and over again, that's infinite regress, not that there is an infinite amount of different events.
The circle had to be drawn. There was a first circle. The circle didn’t just exist forever. Even if that’s the case there has to be a cause of its existence
@@timetravlin4450 There is no first event, as every piece in the circle is the result of the previous piece, and so it goes on to infinity. All of those pieces make up the circle as a whole. "First" and "last" are illusionary concepts we've made up as humans to explain small parts of this infinite chain of events. I think the most logical approach is to follow the evidence we have around us, which is cause and effect. Having an uncaused cause to start the whole chabang is made up stuff, that stems from the illusion we've adapted. If you keep asking "what caused this?", then you should logically arrive at the moment you're about to enter, granted you had all the information of each step in the chain of events.
one more thing... I used to have a Facebook and I was like, "man I need to add this guy" so I went to do so and we were already friends and had engaged in debate on multiple occasions. Funny stuff.
I prefer the notion of a prime mover operating a video game in a Sims universe. I'm far removed from taking any responsibility for s😎it hitting the fan.
All infinite regress goes to the Big Bang and beyond and infinitely. Where did the water from the cup come from and how was it poured? And so on so forth.
Have you thought about this: If there was an infinity before the Big Bang, the Big Bang could never have occurred, because an infinity would have passed before it. What do you think about this idea?
@@abdelaleem4026 One response is infinite cycles. I like the idea of some sort of cyclical universe. Sir Roger Penrose has an interesting theory with his ccc model. However, there are many more like the multiverse theory proposing we are one of infinite bubble universes that are forever popping into existence. It's beyond our knowledge and comprehension right now. However, I just can't see a reaction coming without a previous action.
@@damnedcarrot interesting theory, I agree with the action reaction idea. But I find it hard to believe an infinite cyclic recurrence theory. Because if everything is in an eternity loop, then every cause in the cycle chain is dependent on the cause preceding it. Thus the entire chain of causes would be dependent, and hence will need an external cause. This proves that just like infinite recurrence is impossible, infinite cyclic recurrence is also impossible. And also, I was thinking about the laws of thermodynamics. The universe has limited usable energy, which will be used in the future and lead to the destruction of the universe. If we live in an infinite cyclic recurrence, then this would violate the laws of thermodynamics.
@@abdelaleem4026 It doesn't violate any laws when looking at it from a scaling perspective as per ccc model. Our heat death would look very similar to the CMB. Also the quantum realm appears to pop energy in and out of existence all the time which appear to at least bend the rules of thermodynamics as we currently understand them. www.nature.com/news/the-new-thermodynamics-how-quantum-physics-is-bending-the-rules-1.22937
@@damnedcarrot very intriguing, but I do believe there is an underlying mechanism for all things. Quantum particles don't just pop into existence without any cause, which scientists may not understand for now
And they say “you have no proof for God!!” We ARE the proof!! The fact that something exists, is predicated on a first cause that is not itself caused!!!!
@@jourdanwashington1737 Infinite regress possible? It even exists in our reality: Logical infinite regress: transfinite induction in mathematics Causal infinite regress: Feynman path integral or Zeno's paradox. If you have a problem understanding infinities, this is your problem. Claiming it therefore doesn't exist is a fallacy.
But there are instances where an infinite series adds up to a finite result. One is Xeno's Paradox; it would appear that regardless of how fleet of foot Achilles is, he can never catch up to the tortoise if the tortoise has a head start - and yet it obviously does happen. Another example is from mathematics, where .3333... + .3333... + .3333... equals PRECISELY 1- not "close to 1" but exactly 1. This can be proven by showing that 1/3=.3333..., and 1/3 +1/3 +1/3 equal precisely 1.
Well, considering the 'because' chain will always lead back to quantum mechanics (a field where regress is so far as we can tell nonexistent) I guess this idea is rather ignorant.
Zap Rowsdower If I understand what you mean, I don't think you understand the point of the video, he is claiming exactly that an infinite regression of arguments can't lead to any real conclusion. Your claim that it always goes back to quantum mechanics (even if I don't believe it) agrees with his point, you also don't believe that there could be an infinite regression, because at some point the regression would have to come down to quantum mechanics, which mean they are not inifinite, and any chain of reasoning that doesn't get to that would be wrong.
Thiago Pereira Maia I know you’ve written this two years ago, but here’s a thought. When a person asks who created God, then it goes back in an infinite regress, I don’t believe that necessarily means that the “truth or conclusion” of the universe arising through creation is thrown out the window. People would claim that if there was an infinite amount of gods that go back, the universe would’ve never been created. The thing is, we’re dealing with conscious entities here, not inanimate glasses of water. Since gods created gods before, that doesn’t mean these same gods don’t create other things. It is in their nature to create gods, but they also have the ability to create things such as the universe. This is an assumption, but it’s based on that most conscious beings we know of, have some sort of side quests that they occupy other than their natural instincts. So it’s perfectly possible that the creator of the universe was created and created both a universe and a god too. There’s no reason to think this assumption is unreasonable because it’s perfectly logical and possible too.
This is only true if C is reliant on some other truth or is in and of itself "Self Evident." In which case, no his argument is not false, it is just simplified for ease of consumption.
If existence exists, doesn't that end the chain of premises that there's a cat sitting over there? What would be an example of a conclusion with an infinite number of supporting premises? I'm not convinced one can exist. Also, what is an example of a conclusion that can't be broken down with questions resulting in numerous premises that end up dissolving the conclusion? You are a highly under rated channel but that's the nature of saying intelligent things unfortunately.
The infinite regress is a stupid idea. That's why scientists don't take philosophers seriously. So far, every single person who is trying to explain the infinite regress of causes, had to use twisted words and ideas, none has been able to truly prove that there is an infinite regress.
+Youssef Hegazy First of all, scientists absolutely do take philosophers seriously. The scientific method emerged from philosophy and so it depends on some fundamental axioms that are assumed to be self evident to avoid infinite regress. What do you think the laws of logic are?
@@yasirazhari3794 Some philosophers. Philosophy as a discipline has indeed a problem that their arguments are often more rhetorical than logical or empirical in nature.
I mean... That's the whole point he was getting at. If there were an infinite number of universes before us, and you went into the middle of that infinite number of universes, then you can conclude we will never existed, which is clearly false.
Yes you're right there are no "middle" of the infinity, and it implies that there are no parts of infinity, but this contradicts with notion of time which is measurable, have parts (according to naive realistic point of view). Hence time cannot be infinite.
“We hold these truths to be self evident “
Not what they meant,
their principles are not at all self-evident,
since if a statement can be rationally denied, it cannot be self-evident,
and you can do that with every single thing they say.
“We hold these truths to be self evident," does not mean that what they are about to say is true without proof,
rather, it is an old-timey, polite way of saying, "if you don't accept this, go suck a lemon."
I appreciate both your philosophical work and personality, Steve - bless you!
I really love it, thank you very much. I have been using this for years in my arguments and now I’m happy to see someone explains it on video.
Yeah it’s too bad he never realized that the statement defeats itself. How did he come to that conclusion if there was an infinite regression behind it?
@@Dah_J To be on the right track, we have to realize that we are talking about two possibilities, either an infinite chain of causes or an absolute cause at the end of it. If the chain of causes is infinite, then it is absolutely impossible for something to happen due to infinite regression.
@@FulaanS yes I agree. Which is why atheism is self defeating
@@FulaanS That's very interesting
أهلًا فلان..
1:07 you just worded what I've been wondering my entire life
I'm feeling thirsty for water for some reason.
Lol
That the cat is dead regardless if you look in the box because eventually it will starve to death.
I am humbled with your explanation of the logical incoherence of the infinite regress. Your analogy of the cup of water has been a huge help for me, now I can (mostly) ditch the grim reaper paradox.
Liked.
fantastic vid
I actually can visualize and understand this. It's, in a manner of speaking, similar to "The Terminator" infinite regress. There (theoretically) was an "original" timeline.
Where/When Sarah wasn't accosted by Kyle and T-800. She went on living her life until Judgement Day. She birthed John; albiet *another* father. John went on to set in motion the events that follow. With no beginning or _termination_ .
2:53
Is the cup metaphor faulty because of the necessity of having to pour the water from the cup one holds into the cup down the line? How can you empty the contents of your cup if the person down the line is emptying their cup? An infinite number of cups will spill their contents. How about a new metaphor? A bucket brigade?
The cup analogy doesn't work, because causality doesn't have to permeate down. It was always permeated. The second example with 1 and 0 straight up made no sense.
But also logically speaking you might as well make the following infinite argument:
1. If first 0, then first 1.
2. If second 0 and second 1, then third 0.
3. If third 0, then forth 0.
4. If forth 0, then fifth 0.
5. If fifth 0, then sixth 0.
...
∞. If infiniteth 0, then first 0.
C. Therefore, if second 0 and second 1, then first 1.
This is a valid and sound argument, If we were to apply any "0" to be false and any "1" to be true as suggested in this video.
I love your video I refer it to many people when i talk about necessary existence
The truth necessities of logic is by our limitation.. This doesn't mean infinity regress doesn't exist..
It literally cannot exist
@mahadahmedbaloc Gateway process and dmt experience and out body experience, all proved the existence of one all connected collective consciousness know as paradoxical immortal existence or god. That's the fundamental reason why in their experience, they're capable of telepathic communication and getting intuitive knowledges from the universe. And go to where/whenever them want to go in a instant. This can only happen when that existence is and part of so-called god at same time, it just like talking to oneself. Therefore infinite regression must exists.
This is all compelling, but infinite regress isn’t disproven. You assert that there has to be a beginning for there to be a fundamental truth, but you fail to explain why fundamental truth exists. Fundamental truth doesn’t exist, everything exists in context.
Infinite regress is possible, because every cause has an effect, and every effect has a cause. It’s impossible for there to be one without the other, therefore, if there can be no beginning nor end, it can only be infinite regress. You’re not meeting the burden of proof here, it’s all predicated on the belief that “things have to have started somewhere” which is ridiculous.
🤣 so happened an infinite causes till today , therefore infinite is finite. Therefore even atheists believe in miracles, dumb miracles but miracles.
A basic principle observed around us is that every effect has a cause. If this is the case then everything must have a predecessor. The problem with this statement is that this will cause us to result in infinite regression,which is not possible. For instance:
Let there be Object 1
1 is caused by 2, which is caused by 3 which is caused......... (ad infinitum)
Now lets reverse this cycle and try to reach from infinity to object 1
Object infinity causes object (inifnity - 1), object (inifnity - 1) causes (infinity-2)........
The problem is we will never reach object 1 as there is an infinite number of causes before reaching the number 1 (infinite regression). Therefore there must be one thing which was not caused by anything before it or after it . Something which has no predecessor, and ignited all the causes. We call that thing "God"
Is this infinite regression possible ? Do you think this argument is fallicious?
Well, I'm 6 years late, but. If you're still alive I can help you develop this argument
Think this might be a misunderstanding of the infinite.
You also seem to assume that there was initial cause because of the direction of the travel. You're posing the question can something from an infinite distance from where I am standing come to me. But the true analogy is can something move from where you are standing for an infinite distance.
You can very fairly reject the idea as not something you can accept, and the analogies you gave could help someone decide to do that, but you didn't provide logical proof.
The idea of infinity is totally alien for humans and really beyond imagination of comprehension. You can use the concept of it correctly but never can experience it.
I GET IT NOW thank you !!!
Could you explain why an infinite regress is impossible in layman's terms? I simply don't understand the vocabulary and there isn't a whole lot of information on the topic of infinite regression on the internet.
I don't understand in the analogy why ONLY the first cup would have water in it, so without a first cup you cannot have water. Please explain thanks
He's saying imagine if the water in cup 1 was poured into it from cup 2, and cup 2 got it's water from cup 3, then this would go on forever.Because any cup number you get to, e.g. cup 100 got it's water from cup 101. and so on..
Qnly does the water have to come from another cup? Because he is talking about the reverse of how things seem to cause things when we look at our world.
An infinite thing means you can't reach the end. If you had infinite causes, and you went to the middle, you can't reach the beginning or the end. If that's the case, you can say that there is no end, which is wrong because we know ____ to be true. For example, we exist, so there cannot be infinite causes before us
Imagine an infinite number of people standing in line to order food in front of you, will you ever order food.
@@ceceroxy2227 Noice analogy
Surely the whole point of this is what Descartes concluded - I think therefore I am is the only thing we can know that we know
Sacratease Perhaps - I think therefore there is and must be
The artist painting a picture of the artist painting a picture of the artist painting a picture of the artist painting a picture...of a landscape
Zeno's paradox seems like a counter-example.
it's not because the infinite regress still occurs
3:55 There is no such thing an "infinite amount" or adding such a amount. Infinity is the notion of addition without a end, that means +1 ad infinitum.
Calculus is the branch of math designed to express and mathematically manipulate infinite amounts.
It seems to me, correct me if I am wrong, that you are describing the way in which the Coherence Theory of Truth is used to determine the validity of a proposition to arrive at a premise to reach a conclusion. Through not a single proposition, but truth is derived from a whole series of propositions related to the one, and individual premises or conclusions inferred by their coherence with the whole. So D (the original proposition) must then cohere to C (premise) then cohere to B (premise) then cohere to A (premise) and all be coherent and related to the original proposition to be regarded as truth. And yes this does seem tedious and infinitely regressed!
But what about the the Correspondence Theory of Truth that is used to determine truth by the actual state of affairs and how that truth relates to them. So in your example of the conclusion that a cat is sitting on the chair, we would examine the state you described, a cat sitting on a chair, by first the truth of a state of affairs in which a cat and the chair exists, and next the truth of the cat as related to the chair by virtue of sitting upon it. And that is as far as we go in determining the validity of the conclusion that "a cat is sitting on the chair" and no need for the infinite regress. I tend to think this is more empirical, but limited to accurately interpreting and defining objective reality.
And, of course, there are the other theories of truth which can be used as well such as the Pragmatic Theory of Truth, the Consensus Theory of Truth, the Deflationary Theory of Truth, the Redundancy Theory of Truth, the Semantic Theory of Truth, Kripke's Theory of Truth, and the Model theory and Proof theory which are more for mathematical truths. Each one of these might be used for proper epistemic justification, although perhaps with varying degrees of truth value. (For instance, I believe the Consensus Theory of Truth is simply the truth of the herd and history has shown how wrong that can be!) Yet none of them leading to absolute truth because, personally, I don't think that exists because relativity has a way of rearing it's ugly head in unexpected ways. Even if you claimed that water freezes at 32 degrees, or boils at 100 degrees, there are variables which alter that, like altitude, and it becomes a relative truth. And of course the whole method of testing temperature is based on a uniform sequence of numbers, but that sequence could be any set of numbers as long as it provides consistency in measurement. But absolute truth is, of course, debatable and I have my notes and arguments already prepared!
I know each Theory of Truth has their own pros and cons, but I felt you were perhaps describing only the Coherence Theory of Truth and how it is used to determine the validity of statements, propositions and conclusions specifically, and not necessarily alternate methods of arriving at truth, such as the Correspondence Theory of Truth which may not necessarily lead to the infinite regress you discuss. Again, correct me if I am wrong.
he's describing a logical falacy, not demonstrating why a theory of truth is false.
Basically logically everything has a beginning. Within human logic. Within our own constricted mind of knowledge understanding and imagination. Therefore it is impossible for something not to have a beginning and not to always exist.
That's why the First Cause exists
Phoenix, it seems like you are commiting a logical fallacy called 'Begging the Question' coz your conclusion is already mentioned in the premise.
Well then I can use the same argument for the existence of God. he is beyond human logic that's why human's can't understand him
Hmm. It is possible that the conclusion is true but the premises are wrong. So I don't get it when you say that if the conclusion is true then some premises must be "holding the water." But I think the point is that if even a single premise is not justified the conclusion is not justified to be believed.
I don't think he said that, he only said that if some of the premises have truth values in themselves, then they aren't dependent on the previous alone. Otherwise you are correct, a conclusion may be true, and be argued from a completely meaningless set of premises.
Thank you very much
Infinite regress is an appropriate topic for this channel.
Logic! Exactly what I'm obsessed with!! :D
This is a rhetorical not logical argumentation.
Something must exist necessarily in order for anything to exist at all. And the infinite regress fallacy teaches us that statement is true
Just for clarification, this is not an argument that a creator of the universe exists, it is that a creator MIGHT exist, it could be true and it could be not and i personally don't know and i don't think anyone really does
This is clearly an argument for that. There had to be something that had the will to initiate the chain.
@@MaximumOverTrolll why there should be a chain in the first place, why isn't our universe the beginning and the end of that "chain"
@@Rain_MG pantheism believes is that
You meant the illogic behind infinite regress.
The problem with offering an "intuitive" description of infinites is that they are always guaranteed to be faulty imo.
You can have an infinite number of 0s AND 1. an infinite number of 0s PLUS 1.
So the concern might be redefined as "when did the 1 get added to the series of 0s" but that would be begging the question, surely?!
Maybe it was never added. Maybe it was always a part of the series. This series is, and has always been , a series containing 1. The current "location" of the 1 might be discrete only by virtue of the perspective of the observer.
I find it interesting that we can't conceive of infinites despite being constantly surrounded by them.
Everything you have ever experienced has causal connections that span farther backwards than the lifetime of the planet you live on. It extends further forward and backwards than you can fathom. I feel like saying "there must be a start" is less a statement of undeniable truth, amd more an axiomatic statement based on human perspective.
We struggle with the concept of infinites, imo, not because it is somehow fundamentally flawed, but because we are not infinite.
and that's why there's a creator to this universe
and who made them.....?
@@andrewlucas1595 who made what?
This got me existential and mindfucked ngl
"Only if" and "because" are different logical operators and cannot be treated the same. D because C says that D is true if C is true. C may be false and D may be still true. "Only if" implies that if C is false, then D is false. If C is true, that doesn't say anything then about D.
Mill Bill You are certainly right, but he isn't talking about that, but he doesn't say that the infinite regression means the conclusion is necessarily wrong, he only means that it cannot come from the premises set as an infinite regression.
@@Imheretohelpnhavefun It can. It is called transcendental induction in mathematics.
A very useful tool.
Infinities are not simple. One has to be very careful. This video provides a rhetorical not logical argument against the existence of infinite regress. But this doesn't mean it is impossible. And in fact it is possible (transcendental induction).
The problem is that typical philosophers don't understand infinities. They didn't catch up. Their argumentation is more rhetorical than logical. And this is a symptom of that.
And that's why children as well as philosophers and scientists keep asking: why, why, why.
Because at some pooh you'll reach the "first cup of water" on which the premises are based.
Some people argue indeed that you could just keep asking on forever and that you can't know things for sure ever and stuff being relative.
But they probably had a vd experience with exploring premises (parents shutting their inquiries down) before they could reach the base ("just because I said so, now shut up") and the curiosity and logical derision is discouraged.
...but, WHY? ;p
"Because at some pooh you'll reach the "first cup of water"" And yet we never do. As if there is no first cup of water.
Thank you so much man
Something had to start the ball rolling. Cause-and-effect. This is why I believe in intelligent design because I don't think that something could come from nothingness.
You don't think that something can come from nothing in general or that something cannot come from nothing in its own?
Normal sense of cause and effect is illusion after all, self projection is a better term. Self projection must be a paradox, and it's the same to one unity collective consciousness. So the infinite regression is inevitable. The head must bite the tail. In order to do that, the whole structure may not like what you imagine. At some layer of the structure, one may able to aware all possible awareness at same time.
Good presentation; I've watched it a couple of times before... But I just realized prior to watching this video again, that (as some people want to deny objective Truth), true knowledge itself is impossible without the existence of objective Truth to anchor to (ie even the supposed education of such people who deny truth is invalidated, and their so-called "knowledge" is simply reduced to mere babbling opinion without any real weight of authority; by their own assertion of denying truth, they have just acknowledged that nothing they have to say means anything, and therefore, we really have no good reason to listen to them or believe them).
Hey Remy... I behold the Truth to be a participant in this account. Very well said!
“Thou canst not recognize not-being (for this
is impossible), nor couldst thou speak of it,
for thought and being are the same thing.”
/ Parmenides
That’s why philosophy is so empty for atheists
infinite zeros can still add up to 1. Look up measure theory in mathematics, adding uncountably many zeros can result in a non zero number.
If there is one cup full of water there and an infinite number of cups behind it than it doesn't matter how many times you move the water; there will always be an infinite number of empty cups before it. There will be a finite number of cups afterwords which is equal to the number of times you moved the water.
Zeno's arrow bro. The water can't even get to whichever cup you think it is in.
It would always have to travel an infinite number of cups to get to the next cup if there are really an infinite number of cups in the chain.
Regress: the action of returning to a former or less developed state.
Your example you gave is for progress
i literally had a dream about this.
@@agadirand4four347 i had a dream about this word ive never heard of. So i looked it up on youtube and this perfectly describes the abstract dream i was having.
i think you are talking about limits of knowledge and argumentation. and the fact that sound arguments and all math and science rely on definition and axioms.
An infinite regress is a problem only for a finite mind, not for the actual truth value. Self-evidence is just as much a problem for epistemology as an infinite regress; both are hiding the problem of faith.
no its a problem because its impossible
@@ghollisjr Have you thought about it at all.
All you have to you simple reasoning skills.
If there were an infinite number of events that preceded right now, we could never arrive at this current event, because that means you would have had to completed an infinite series to arrive at this current event right now.
But thats certainly illogical, you cant complete an infinite series, otherwise it wouldnt be infinite. There's also other reasons, if the series of past of events has no beginning and goes back infinitely, there will be no series of events at all, for there must be a first member in a series for the series to exist at all. So it's almost self evident that an infinite regression of temporal successive events is illogical and impossible. Not sure why you have an issue with that.
I agree voting on it is not a good way to determine what is true. If you would like to make an argument for the possibility of completing an infinite series to arrive at this point,in time, I would be happy to hear it.
@@ghollisjr I am arguing from rationality, reason and reality. For you to say that there is no problem in completing an infinite series of past events, youre entitled to believe that if you want. Infinite past series of events is one that goes on forever, so to complete something that never ends is a contradiction.
Let me ask you, if you went to a restaurant to order food, and there was an infinite (never ending)number of people standing in front of you to order, and one by one they ordered, would you ever get to order food
How can you have an infinite number of marks or legders, wouldntyou have to get to the number that precedes infinity to actually reach an infinite number of anything.
Xenos paradox is a case of potential infinites where you can cut things half and half and half forever, but at no point in time will you ever reach an infinite number of halves. Potential infinities exist in the way you can go on forever. Actual infinities do not exist. It is impossible to have an actually infinite number of anything quantifiable.
@@ghollisjr Here is another anology, if there was a sniper who was going to shoot needed to get his commanders permission to shoot, and that commander needed his commanders permission, and that commander needed his commanders permission and this process went back infinitely with no first commander would that sniper ever shoot?
@@ghollisjr No zenos paradox is certainly not a direct anology, You have a starting point and an end point, with an infinite regress there is no starting point.
You never really answered my questions, If there was an infinite number(unlimited) of people standing in front of you in line to order food, and one by one they ordered would you ever order food.
And the other anology I gave you was a sniper who needed confirmation to shoot from his commander, and that commander needed permission from his commander and that commander needed permission from his commander and that went backward ad infinitum forever, would the sniper ever shoot? The correct answer to this was no, the sniper would never shoot, because there is an infinite regress with no first commander, so I am not quite sure you really understood the point of the anology.
This is to do with realm of mind and thought. It's easy to get lost because our mind can create multiple realities within the mind. That is why in Indian cultures they called this world the world of maya or the world of illusion
this applies to the atheists question " where did god come from or who created god" the question itself is empty and doesn't qualify as a proper question, questions should lead you to specific results, asking a question that is based on an empty/illogical assumption will bear no fruit, and it'll only lead you into the infinite regress, the illogical assumption in the question above is that the creator and the created are ought to have the same restrictions and qualities which is stupid in and of itself, a carpenter and a wooden door is a good simple example for that.
@@code99k
"That's not an illogical question. It's perfectly logical to ask who created God.
You cannot answer this because your entire philosophy is flawed",
the notion of god being created only leads to the entity that created god being created itself and so on, that is an infinite regress for you
"The number of assumptions you need to make without proof, to get to fit the universe as God's creation is in itself huge. On top of that you are making another huge number of assumptions by claiming God is made up of different set of rules."
can you point out to me the " number of assumptions" i made in my original comment ?
where did i say god is made of different set of rules ? all i said was saying or using the same rules by which we're governed/made and applying it to god is illogical
" What infinite regression means is there is no truth transmitted at the end of the chain if the truth is at the infinite beginning of the chain."
and that is exactly what you arrive to if you "assumed" god has to be created or made, you'll never find the end of that chain, and finally as for the insults "Seriously you people need psy help."
they have no affect at all, if anything only the ones with the weaker logic use it to try to get on the other person's nerves to get him or her to make a mistake.
@@code99k “infinite regress means there is no truth transmitted at the end of the chain if the truth is at the beginning of the chain”
Are u denying that truth exists?
Do you exist? Yes u do.
That is a prime example of absolute truth which u cannot deny and here it is at this part of the “chain”, so how could it have come here if regress is truly infinite. If it was infinite (which its obviously not), that, by definition, would mean that there would be absolutely no starting point to the causal chain, therefore, we wouldn’t exist (unless u deny existence, which u can’t). If u believe in existence, logically, you believe that there was a start to the causal chain.
“It’s perfectly logical to ask who created god”
It might seem to be logical but it is really not if u are well versed in logic and/or philosophy.
Here’s why, in order for anything to be created it has to be created by something eternal and uncreated, otherwise (if nothing is truly eternal) there would be nothing, and nothingness cannot create something.
For example, the universe could not have created itself, because in order for it create itself, it had to have existed beforehand to do so. See the issue in this worldview?
Therefore, the universe was created by something. This is applied to whatever you wanna believe created the universe (other universes, etc) except for god, because by definition, god is eternal and uncreated.
Therefore, God is the only way the universe could exist, and the only way the causal chain could start.
I really do hope u find the truth, and I mean that sincerely.
Lol the reason why people ask "Who created God?" is a response to teleological argument (or argument by design)... If anything that aforementioned argument is a setup for infinite regression, like why you assume human beings needed to be created in the first place? The logic goes both ways
@@_o__o there is a big problem, the assumption of causation only apply with in the universe.. God is treated as beyond the universe.. Universe itself doesn't have a cause or it cannot be proven that it need a cause.. Coz our logic is based on within the universe.. And all the ur answer comes up to fundamental problem of nothing.. U assume nothing is real.. But u cannot in anyway prove logically or anyway that pure nothingness exist.. Only conclusion is universe is eternal.. Universe exist not creator needed..
So the question of who created the universe is itself flawed
@@absurdist5938 well the universe is not eternal, have u heard of the big bang? Scientists have also discovered that in the future, the universe will cease to exist, just further proof that it is not eternal.
Even if u want to argue that causation is only a part of the universe, then you’r making the argument that something can come from nothing and by nothing which is impossible since nothing has no properties and therefore cannot create anything so it is a flawed and contradictory argument. Another other option is that the universe created itself (or whatever particles came b4 created themselves) out of nothing, this viewpoint also has a contradiction since in order for the universe (or anything) to create itself out of nothing it would had have existed beforehand to do so. The only viable argument is the existence of an eternal and necessary being that created everything, otherwise you’d be left with absolute nothingness (without a god) but that is wrong as well since both u and I exist.
The argument that logic doesn’t exist outside of the universe is weak. Logical facts such as bachelors are unmarried men and 2+2=4 are true no matter wgat (even if it is in a different universe) because it is within the term “bachelor’s” definition that he’s an unmarried man. As is the case with nothingness and its 0 properties, as is the case with a necessary existence (god).
The argument that true nothingness does not exist, I believe, is true since there has to be a necessary existence (god). But if u deny a necessary and eternal existence then you would be stuck with the infinite regress fallacy.
also, not only do the soundness of an argument rely on the truth of the premise, but the validity of the arugment. this requires logical proof that mathematics can provide
Steve, if I may ask, what do you do for a living? I'm just curious.
Logic is the foundation of knowledge and it emphasizes the necessity of the existence of an initial cause for everything (God).
It emphasizes the necessity of the existence of an initial cause, but first, that doesn’t land you anywhere near the conclusion of a God, and second, even if it did land you on the conclusion of a god, that still doesn’t land you anywhere near the conclusion of your particular god.
I swear, it’s as if belief in god only makes people dumber.
@@alejandrovallejo4330 you made three claims here buddy.
"but first, that doesn’t land you anywhere near the conclusion of a God"
"second, even if it did land you on the conclusion of a god, that still doesn’t land you anywhere near the conclusion of your particular god."
"I swear, it’s as if belief in god only makes people dumber."
Can u provide evidence to support your claims?
im not here to start a debate on the existence of God with you im just trying to learn and understand different POV.
@@trooperslayer5910 well, the first two are more vague rebuttals, and the third is more just an opinion/jab at religious people incapable of seeing other possible conclusions, but I’ll happily explain more in depth what I mean.
OP insinuates that there must be an initial cause for the universe/existence. For arguments sake I implicitly conceded that indeed there must be an initial cause. However, my point is that even conceding that there must be an initial cause, that doesn’t mean the cause is automatically sentient, or a god, that is something that is not self evident in the conclusion of an initial cause and must be demonstrated after demonstrating that there must have been an initial cause.
Furthermore, even if I conceded that an initial cause automatically implies that there is a god, OP would still have to demonstrate that said god conforms or matches the god of their religion/beliefs.
So my statements were not claims that I have the solution, rather I was critiquing that through shitty logic, OP arrived prematurely and with no justification to their desired conclusion and that in my opinion they are unable to see the flaws in their logic due to their religious bias.
@@alejandrovallejo4330 aight sweet appreciate the explanation
It doesn't even need an initial cause, only an axiom
5 year olds are great a infinite regression.
That is why you can't say How creat gad ,There must be something eternal in order for the universe to exist.
Yes exactly
No, it proves that human reason requires at least one axiom
Thanks!
Theists say that infinite regression is impossible because because the chain cannot go on forever and thus it's impossible.But say that their God is true because he is eternal but that implies that he is infinite and has existed forever and thus they imply that the idea of Infinity and forever is possible.That means that an infinite regression is just as possible as the first cause because both rely on using infinity to explain themselves
Things in nature that begin to exsist require cause. What ever the cause is can't be of nature, and in order to set motion would have to choose. A supernatural thinking thing, or just God for short.
@@souzajustin19d Everything inside the known universe needs a cause to our knowledge.But we don't know if the laws of cause and effect which is a universal law of the universe applies to the universe itself.
@@PopeUrbanX "But we don't know if the laws of cause and effect which is a universal law of the universe applies to the universe itself." Do you have evidence that it does not? if not, then you have no reason to assume it does not.
@@souzajustin19d I never assumed whether it applied to the universe I said "we don't know" and that it's unlikely that we'll ever be able to know and thus to assume either of the options without evidence is baseless
@@PopeUrbanX Do you have evidence that natural laws do not apply to the universe? if not, then you have no reason to believe it. Its not complicated since we have plenty of evidence showing natural laws effecting the universe now. You need further evidence to prove the law were different back then. With no evidence, you have no reason to believe that it was.
Nicely explained 👍
One of the three unsatisfying source of knowledge in Agrippa trilemma. The other 2 are axiomatic and circular arguments.
unless you had an infinite amount of water.
I don't know about you but I get my infinite truths from 2x2 water source blocks.
So a "missing link" in evolution debunks it correct? The improbably of life creating itself?
Thank you for this.
I asserted my belief that the universe is infinite and someone said that's an infinite regress. Is their accusation true?
I would assume it is because I have no proof that the universe is infinite aside from not reaching the end of the universe (they were arguing there's an end to the universe). However we both can be wrong. And both have infinite regress since we don't know the answer to these assertions.
well done!!
Steve, couldn't we dismiss something like the simulation hypothesis or Descartes brain in a tank hypothesis etc. with the infinite regress? Whereas you could always go back one higher being simulating the reality of the being below it ad infinitum.
I think it is a good argument against the simulation hypothesis.
Then what about the actions of God? Since God always could create one thing after another, then this premise requires that an infinite regress is at the very least possibble isnt it?
"no premise In the chain has its own truth value.
Well that's false. We start at 1 truth value and we simply work our way back against multiple other truth values.
No he's saying that you can't have infinite numbers of premises to prove something true
@@NightCrafted You also can have an infinite chain of steps to prove something. It is incredibly useful tool called transfinite induction in mathematics, which is precisely that.
The claim that infinite regress is not possible is false. The arguments in this direction are rhetorical and fallacious.
@@tofu-munchingCoalition.ofChaos mathematics isn't causal. We are referring to an argument of causality
@@NightCrafted In this video an "argument" (rhetorical not logical) against logical infinite regress was made.
You even replied to a statement about the logical infinite regress and you used the language of logic "premise" not causality "cause".
Logical infinite regress:
transfinite induction in mathematics
Causal infinite regress: Feynman path integral or Zeno's paradox.
@@tofu-munchingCoalition.ofChaos You are confusing continuity with causation. Zeno's paradox (or other arguments via continuity) is not a matter of causation. That is, a single instance within a continuity is not causal of the next instance. (It is in theory, but the division of moments is an accident of the initial cause). The motion of an arrow in of itself is a caused thing, and motion itself does not perpetuate the motion- only the first actor (the drawing of the bow) creates motion. Division among this is only an illusion. Zeno's paradox cannot be correct (obviously) because the conclusion is incorrect. The conclusion is incorrect because a premise is incorrect. The premise that each instances causes the next is incorrect.
You also are not drawing the distinction between causal and modal. Causal is where the existence of something is dependent on the existence of another. Modal is referring to "howness" of a thing. What Zeno's paradox does is that it mixes the modality (the discrete after the arrow's firing) of the arrow's flight as being causal.
Is the kalam cosmological argument a sufferer of an infinite regress since the first premise states that everything that exists has a cause.
Now doesn't that statement depend upon an observer witnessing every event that has happened in order to make the statement and conclude it's truth .
Not to mention that the first premise states that not anything at all but anything that begins to exist has a cause
No, because the Kalam argument is an argument made by Asharis, which does not fit christian theology. If kalam argument was made to Christianity, it would mean that God has a beginning.
Infinite regress is possible. Philosophers should simply get over it.
For example a proof by transfinite induction is such an infinite regress.
One should be much more precise if one wants to logically prove something.
You outlined that infinite regression is in contradiction with your intuition. But in this case it means your intuition is wrong.
As it caused misunderstanding in other discussions. The video talks about the logical infinite regress.
Perhaps one could believe that there is something special about the causal structure (time) which forbids infinite regress.
But this was not addressed in the video. And in fact there are (given the evidence at the moment) multiple occasions of infinite regressions in the causal structure.
Logical infinite regress:
transfinite induction in mathematics
Causal infinite regress: Feynman path integral or Zeno's paradox.
Again. Philosophy should accept this. The logical reasoning should be much more careful.
Logic as a discipline is much more precise than this video would make you believe (on top of the conclusion being wrong).
Philosophy lacks a scientific development into a modern scientific discipline at the moment. It is not caching up. It still is more rhetorical than logical or empirical in nature. And the "infinite regress"-argument is a symptom of this.
Thanks for your eloquently worded and informative comment...
I'm one of those philosophers who struggle with this..
I shall study and research this..
wow can you prove that though ? even logically you can't so how are you gonna prove it ? infinity doesn't exist in our real world
@@AchHadda
You mean how can transfinite induction be proven (you can easily google that, but I will repeat it for you here)?
_Let me restate the problem (induction claim):_
It is possible to conclude that a statement A(m) is true for all m in M (and M is an ordered set which is probably infinite) if you only know (induction step) that for all m in M A(m) is true *if* A(n) is true for all n in M smaller than m.
_Transfinite induction:_
If M is a well-ordered set (meaning every non-empty set has a minimum), then the induction claim is true.
Why? Let's suppose A(k) is false for at least one k in M. Then there is a smallest m in M for which A(m) is false. But then A(n) is true for all n smaller than m. But by assumption on A this implies that A(m) is true. But this is a contradiction to the choice of m. Hence our initial assumption that A(k) is wrong for one k in M is false. Or in other words A(k) is true for all k in M as claimed.
_ordered co-complete properties_
Let me give you another example (closely connected to Zeno's paradox). Let us assume that M=[0,1] (the set of real numbers between 0 and 1 including the endpoints) with natural ordering. Let us assume that A is a infimum-co-complete property (meaning that if A(x) is false than A is false for the infimum of x for which A(x) is false). Then the induction hypothesis is true.
Why? If A(x) is false for some x in M, then A(m) is false, where m is the infimum of all counter examples. But then A(n) is true for all n in M smaller than m. But by the induction step it follows again that A(m) is true (contradiction). But then our initial assumption is wrong and hence A(x) is true for all x in M.
@@AchHadda PS: Depending on the structural properties of the index set M and the structural properties of the claim A, it is possible that a induction step is enough to prove the statement for all instances.
Mathematicians use this all the time. In mathematics infinities are incredibly helpful and perfectly defined.
There are even statements about finite numbers which can only be proven (and this can be proven) by using infinities. For example: ruclips.net/video/uWwUpEY4c8o/видео.html and ruclips.net/video/oBOZ2WroiVY/видео.html
PPS: Furthermore what do you mean infinities don't exist in our real world? For example the inverse of speed can be infinite (in a rest frame). Infinity is often only a matter of perspective. So perhaps you mean that there is only a finite amount of stuff? So there is no counting infinity in the real world (cardinal infinities)? But we simply don't know that. There could be infinitly many stars in the universe (vs. the observable universe). It is even more likely to be the case given various sources of empirical evidence (for example the cosmic microwave background or the existence of distant stars together with a positive cosmological constant).
Essentially the error in your argument is confusing justification with truth.
Each statement in the chain of infinite regress is either true or false regardless if you, anyone or anything else can prove it to be so. What you're really talking about is a pragmatic consideration: Can an infinite regression be knowledge, justified truth?
The way human beings solve this problem is through some kind of faith. We eventually get tired of asking questions and just accept some premise, calling it self-evident to assuage our wounded pride.
No it cannot be- if you had an infinite regress, and for example went into the middle of those infinite causes, you'd never reach the beginning or the end, by which you can conclude that we never existed. So an infinite regression cannot exist, not that it's the case that we simply accept it not to exist out of convenience
@@NightCrafted you are totally incorrect
@@iruleandyoudont9 please enlighten us with your genius intellect
@@NightCrafted ever heard of Zeno's paradox?
@@iruleandyoudont9 yes, but that doesn't apply to this case. By using Zeno's paradox as an argument against my statement is to imply that each moment is causal of another moment, whereas this is not really the case. Causes *subsist* via moments, but moments themselves are not causal
It's not clear to me that your analysis applies in all situations. For example, various mathematical procedures generate infinite regresses with no final result, yet they are considered meaningful. In logic, if I understand correctly. an infinite regress is a problem only if it is vicious (such as the paradox of the liar). Otherwise they do not seem to be self-contradictory and are therefore not invalid. But perhaps I am going beyond the focus of your presentation which I very much enjoyed.
That is a great explanation 👏 👌
Thanks
Then there has to be an uncaused cause (GOD)
Nope
@@darkdragonite1419 Your assumption that we start with true and work backwards is wrong. Yes we exist that is true, but how it is we came into existence cannot be proven without a non-contingent thing unless you assume that an infinite regression can occur
How does that follow
@@AtheistDiscussions if there can’t be an infinite regress, there has to be an uncaused cause, which many attribute to God. What else would it be?
@@riche7691 sorry but why can’t there be an infinite regress? What’s the contradiction?
Thank you Steve. Nice vid. Keep the great work up!
I came here because of the movie 'Escape of Planet of The Apes' 1971
Nice....obviously subscribing to your channel
Thanks for posting this video. I agree that an infinite regression cannot by definition eventually terminate at an axiom (or even a set of axioms). But your two-fold conclusion reaches too far for me.
The first part - that we cannot call an infinite regression true 4:18 - clearly implies that they must therefore be false. But really we have no reason to call them false, either. Binary logic works great for problems within its domain. The second part - that every truth must be derivable from axioms 4:30 - contradicts the incompleteness theorem.
You cannot just declare the cups are empty because you cannot prove them full. That would be ... 'intellectual dismissal' ;)
Energy can’t be created or destroyed which means it’s always existed. That would be god otherwise you get infinite regress. So logically it would always have to exist.
you shouldav begun with the 0 example but I still don't understand why this exists
The polar opposites are different maps so you can have infinite 0s balancing infinite 1s, problem solved.
well lets stick to the analogy of the metal chain, and lets imagine we have an infinitely long chain made out of perfect links. Does being infinitely long automatically break the chain? if not, then surely you can have a conclusion supported by infinite premises as long as they're all sound.
To the best of my understanding (I could be wrong), I think the issue is that the chain goes on infinitely. It’s not anchored to anything. It just a bunch of links that are tethered together with no foundation, no ending.
You’ll never be able to pick up the chain an use it to lock up your bike, for example.
You can’t use the chain to tie/hold anything because you can’t get to the end of the chain in order to have it be useful.
Therefore it’s not a perfect chain because you can use it as a chain.
@@boboblueblue2 I can hold stuff with it though, I have one end of the chain right here in my hand. Its just that the other end is infinitely far away, but I can still attach my end of the chain to things.
@@tobak952 then your idea is weighed down and restricted by something so far from where you are you can never be sure what it really is
@@n.quicke4822 what do you mean?
@@tobak952 you say you can attach your end of the chain to things but what good does that do you? you still cannot effectively use it as the person you responded to had said previously
Suppose I needed a dollar to pay for a ticket to ride a bus home. I ask the person behind me in an infinitely long line of people waiting to ride the bus, to lend me a dollar. She says that she will lend me the dollar IF the person behind her will lend her a dollar. Every person in the infinitely long line does the same. Will I ever get the dollar? After an infinite time I will get my dollar, which by definition is never since infinity has no end. If you think about it, the dollar isn’t important in making the point, for it is just an arbitrary event. So there can not be an infinite number of events preceding any other event, or that event will never take place. Reading this argument is an event, and events can not take place if an infinite number of events precede it. Hence there must be a FINITE number of events before this event, otherwise it wouldn’t be occurring. Therefore the Universe has a finite age.
Wrong. Your analogy doesn’t work because the infinite number of events aren’t all unique. Eventually you will reach an event that is what you wanted or the same event where you ask for a dollar.
You assume that each event is unique when it isn’t. There’s only a finite number of ways to rearrange matter. Given enough time you will reach a point that is a repeat of now.
I don’t accept your examples, for instance “water” does not equal “justification” & I don’t see the relevance at all.
Infinite regress is motion, like you draw a circle over and over again, that's infinite regress, not that there is an infinite amount of different events.
The circle had to be drawn. There was a first circle. The circle didn’t just exist forever. Even if that’s the case there has to be a cause of its existence
@@timetravlin4450 There is no first event, as every piece in the circle is the result of the previous piece, and so it goes on to infinity. All of those pieces make up the circle as a whole. "First" and "last" are illusionary concepts we've made up as humans to explain small parts of this infinite chain of events.
I think the most logical approach is to follow the evidence we have around us, which is cause and effect. Having an uncaused cause to start the whole chabang is made up stuff, that stems from the illusion we've adapted.
If you keep asking "what caused this?", then you should logically arrive at the moment you're about to enter, granted you had all the information of each step in the chain of events.
That’s not an “infinite regression”. What you described is actually an infinite cyclical *_progression_*
Infinite regress is a logically flawed idea.
A dream of reality 😇
one more thing...
I used to have a Facebook and I was like, "man I need to add this guy" so I went to do so and we were already friends and had engaged in debate on multiple occasions. Funny stuff.
I prefer the notion of a prime mover operating a video game in a Sims universe. I'm far removed from taking any responsibility for s😎it hitting the fan.
mountain2112 😭
All infinite regress goes to the Big Bang and beyond and infinitely. Where did the water from the cup come from and how was it poured? And so on so forth.
Have you thought about this: If there was an infinity before the Big Bang, the Big Bang could never have occurred, because an infinity would have passed before it. What do you think about this idea?
@@abdelaleem4026 One response is infinite cycles. I like the idea of some sort of cyclical universe. Sir Roger Penrose has an interesting theory with his ccc model. However, there are many more like the multiverse theory proposing we are one of infinite bubble universes that are forever popping into existence. It's beyond our knowledge and comprehension right now. However, I just can't see a reaction coming without a previous action.
@@damnedcarrot interesting theory, I agree with the action reaction idea. But I find it hard to believe an infinite cyclic recurrence theory. Because if everything is in an eternity loop, then every cause in the cycle chain is dependent on the cause preceding it. Thus the entire chain of causes would be dependent, and hence will need an external cause. This proves that just like infinite recurrence is impossible, infinite cyclic recurrence is also impossible.
And also, I was thinking about the laws of thermodynamics. The universe has limited usable energy, which will be used in the future and lead to the destruction of the universe. If we live in an infinite cyclic recurrence, then this would violate the laws of thermodynamics.
@@abdelaleem4026 It doesn't violate any laws when looking at it from a scaling perspective as per ccc model. Our heat death would look very similar to the CMB. Also the quantum realm appears to pop energy in and out of existence all the time which appear to at least bend the rules of thermodynamics as we currently understand them. www.nature.com/news/the-new-thermodynamics-how-quantum-physics-is-bending-the-rules-1.22937
@@damnedcarrot very intriguing, but I do believe there is an underlying mechanism for all things. Quantum particles don't just pop into existence without any cause, which scientists may not understand for now
And they say “you have no proof for God!!” We ARE the proof!! The fact that something exists, is predicated on a first cause that is not itself caused!!!!
I think infinite regression is possible on our plane of existence.
Joel Simoneau explain
@@jourdanwashington1737
Infinite regress possible? It even exists in our reality:
Logical infinite regress:
transfinite induction in mathematics
Causal infinite regress: Feynman path integral or Zeno's paradox.
If you have a problem understanding infinities, this is your problem. Claiming it therefore doesn't exist is a fallacy.
bro you either real tall or live in a box house
*_Awe hell nah, does minimum wage cause unemployment?_*
4:17
But there are instances where an infinite series adds up to a finite result. One is Xeno's Paradox; it would appear that regardless of how fleet of foot Achilles is, he can never catch up to the tortoise if the tortoise has a head start - and yet it obviously does happen.
Another example is from mathematics, where .3333... + .3333... + .3333... equals PRECISELY 1- not "close to 1" but exactly 1. This can be proven by showing that 1/3=.3333..., and 1/3 +1/3 +1/3 equal precisely 1.
There is not series, where all its elements are 0s, and that it adds up to a number different of 0
Well, considering the 'because' chain will always lead back to quantum mechanics (a field where regress is so far as we can tell nonexistent) I guess this idea is rather ignorant.
Zap Rowsdower If I understand what you mean, I don't think you understand the point of the video, he is claiming exactly that an infinite regression of arguments can't lead to any real conclusion. Your claim that it always goes back to quantum mechanics (even if I don't believe it) agrees with his point, you also don't believe that there could be an infinite regression, because at some point the regression would have to come down to quantum mechanics, which mean they are not inifinite, and any chain of reasoning that doesn't get to that would be wrong.
Well, where did those laws come from?
Thiago Pereira Maia I know you’ve written this two years ago, but here’s a thought. When a person asks who created God, then it goes back in an infinite regress, I don’t believe that necessarily means that the “truth or conclusion” of the universe arising through creation is thrown out the window. People would claim that if there was an infinite amount of gods that go back, the universe would’ve never been created. The thing is, we’re dealing with conscious entities here, not inanimate glasses of water. Since gods created gods before, that doesn’t mean these same gods don’t create other things. It is in their nature to create gods, but they also have the ability to create things such as the universe. This is an assumption, but it’s based on that most conscious beings we know of, have some sort of side quests that they occupy other than their natural instincts. So it’s perfectly possible that the creator of the universe was created and created both a universe and a god too. There’s no reason to think this assumption is unreasonable because it’s perfectly logical and possible too.
"If C is true than D is true" doesn't guarantee that D is false if C is false, so your argument is false
This is only true if C is reliant on some other truth or is in and of itself "Self Evident." In which case, no his argument is not false, it is just simplified for ease of consumption.
2+2=5
All I see in the comments are claims, not one lick of evidence for anything.
"Dookie brains"
Appropriate.
Exactomundo!!!!!! Baby!!!!
An uncaused cause exists by necessity!!!!!! YES!!!!!!!
If existence exists, doesn't that end the chain of premises that there's a cat sitting over there?
What would be an example of a conclusion with an infinite number of supporting premises? I'm not convinced one can exist. Also, what is an example of a conclusion that can't be broken down with questions resulting in numerous premises that end up dissolving the conclusion?
You are a highly under rated channel but that's the nature of saying intelligent things unfortunately.
The infinite regress is a stupid idea. That's why scientists don't take philosophers seriously. So far, every single person who is trying to explain the infinite regress of causes, had to use twisted words and ideas, none has been able to truly prove that there is an infinite regress.
+Youssef Hegazy
First of all, scientists absolutely do take philosophers seriously. The scientific method emerged from philosophy and so it depends on some fundamental axioms that are assumed to be self evident to avoid infinite regress. What do you think the laws of logic are?
Logical infinite regress:
transfinite induction in mathematics
Causal infinite regress: Feynman path integral or Zeno's paradox.
@@yasirazhari3794 Some philosophers. Philosophy as a discipline has indeed a problem that their arguments are often more rhetorical than logical or empirical in nature.
Infinite regression is perfectly logical and perfectly possible in an infinite universe or multiverse. So sorry
I mean... That's the whole point he was getting at. If there were an infinite number of universes before us, and you went into the middle of that infinite number of universes, then you can conclude we will never existed, which is clearly false.
@@NightCrafted there is no "middle," you're just not conceiving of the infinite regress in a coherent way and neither is the guy who made this video.
Yes you're right there are no "middle" of the infinity, and it implies that there are no parts of infinity, but this contradicts with notion of time which is measurable, have parts (according to naive realistic point of view).
Hence time cannot be infinite.