# The problem with infinite regress



## Claudiu (May 20, 2014)

One of Thomas Aquinas' proofs for the existence of God is the argument from motion. In this argument he shows how there are things in motion and they must be put in motion by something else that is in motion (we can't have unmoved movers and things that are act and potentiality at the same time). After this, he shows that a chain of motion forms. This, then, could lead to an infinite regress. But, he argues, we can't have an infinite regress because then we would never get to a prime, unmoved mover. My issue is with the infinite regress. Why is it that we can't allow for an infinite regress?

For example, someone could argue that the universe is a long chain of causes and effects of motion. This could go all the way back to the big bang. And the big bang could just be a result of an implosion from the universe before. Or, rather, the universe could be an infinite of constant expanding and imploding over and over again. Why is it that we can't allow for this?


----------



## MW (May 20, 2014)

In physics, such a cause-effect series would eventually run out of energy.

Metaphysically, "infinite" and "process" cancel each other out.

Logically, if cause and effect had no beginning then it never began.

Ethically, one cannot explain how personal being could be caused by impersonal being.


----------



## VictorBravo (May 21, 2014)

Claudiu said:


> Or, rather, the universe could be an infinite of constant expanding and imploding over and over again. Why is it that we can't allow for this?



Adding to the succinct points Matthew makes:

This bootstrapping is the perpetual hope of many theorists, but it is really just a complex quest for a perpetual motion machine. Somehow, they have to account for entropy--that is, somehow, all the increased disorder and spent energy has to be put back into the bottle and reordered. What could possibly "cause" that? Gravity over an infinite period of time? But everything we observe over time tends toward equilibrium unless disrupted. If we are committed to empirical observation, we are committed to the idea that the cycle will flatten out over an infinite period of time. Since there was no beginning, we ought to be frozen and unmoving right now.

Of course, some might rationalize out of that by saying that time stops before the next big bang of the cycle (because there is no motion) and then starts up again. But if there is no time, then there is no infinity. There is a beginning, at least, and likely an end.

The concepts implode on themselves.


----------



## Claudiu (May 21, 2014)

armourbearer said:


> In physics, such a cause-effect series would eventually run out of energy.
> 
> Metaphysically, "infinite" and "process" cancel each other out.
> 
> ...



I appreciate the response. Will you please say a little more in regards to the metaphysical and logical?


----------



## Toasty (May 21, 2014)

Claudiu said:


> One of Thomas Aquinas' proofs for the existence of God is the argument from motion. In this argument he shows how there are things in motion and they must be put in motion by something else that is in motion (we can't have unmoved movers and things that are act and potentiality at the same time). After this, he shows that a chain of motion forms. This, then, could lead to an infinite regress. But, he argues, we can't have an infinite regress because then we would never get to a prime, unmoved mover. My issue is with the infinite regress. Why is it that we can't allow for an infinite regress?
> 
> For example, someone could argue that the universe is a long chain of causes and effects of motion. This could go all the way back to the big bang. And the big bang could just be a result of an implosion from the universe before. Or, rather, the universe could be an infinite of constant expanding and imploding over and over again. Why is it that we can't allow for this?



If there were an infinite regress, then there would be an infinite amount of time. If there were an infinite time, events could not have traversed to the year 2014. Time had a beginning and only God could have created it.


----------



## Claudiu (May 21, 2014)

Toasty said:


> Claudiu said:
> 
> 
> > One of Thomas Aquinas' proofs for the existence of God is the argument from motion. In this argument he shows how there are things in motion and they must be put in motion by something else that is in motion (we can't have unmoved movers and things that are act and potentiality at the same time). After this, he shows that a chain of motion forms. This, then, could lead to an infinite regress. But, he argues, we can't have an infinite regress because then we would never get to a prime, unmoved mover. My issue is with the infinite regress. Why is it that we can't allow for an infinite regress?
> ...



The philosophy of time is a difficult subject, but someone could counter your point and say that maybe there is an infinite amount of time. How could one prove or disprove either position? And, to play devils advocate here, the atheist could argue that even with an infinite time, things could have traversed to the year 2014 just as it did before the big bang, and will continue to the expansion-implosion of the universe, after which another big bang will happen. 

I'm trying to look at the problem not just in terms of physics, but metaphysically and logically as well. Because I take God as creator of the world, there must be a beginning, but does that automatically necessitate the logical invalidity of an infinite regress? 

The thing is, at the metaphysical level, it appears that humanity has always grappled with the fact that we are finite and an infinite exists beyond us. I think the non-theistic routes want to grant this infinity to our own universe, while the Theist realizes that the infinite and eternal is God, who created the finite.


----------



## Claudiu (May 21, 2014)

VictorBravo said:


> Claudiu said:
> 
> 
> > Or, rather, the universe could be an infinite of constant expanding and imploding over and over again. Why is it that we can't allow for this?
> ...


----------



## MW (May 21, 2014)

Claudiu said:


> Will you please say a little more in regards to the metaphysical and logical?



Anything in particular?

Metaphysically, if something is infinite it is without limitation; motion requires change from one limitation to another. Any such process is by nature finite.

Logically, a caused cause or an effect must have had a beginning. If the regress were infinite then it would not have had a beginning. It is a contradiction.

If the term intends to convey the idea that the series of cause-effect goes back prior to the point where man can trace it then it is a misnomer because it is not infinite.


----------



## Claudiu (May 23, 2014)

Here's an idea. Let's take the causal chain of book borrowing. Person A buys a book and lends it to person B who lends it to person C, and on and on. Here, we have a casual chain, but for the causal chain to even begin a book was necessary. That is, before the causal chain could even exist, there had to be a book which would then require person A to buy the book and start the chain. Would we then be able to apply a similar picture to the universe in general? For the causal chain to even exist, there had to be a beginning, or something to set the chain in motion in the first place.


----------



## MW (May 23, 2014)

Claudiu said:


> Here's an idea. Let's take the causal chain of book borrowing. Person A buys a book and lends it to person B who lends it to person C, and on and on. Here, we have a casual chain, but for the causal chain to even begin a book was necessary. That is, before the causal chain could even exist, there had to be a book which would then require person A to buy the book and start the chain. Would we then be able to apply a similar picture to the universe in general? For the causal chain to even exist, there had to be a beginning, or something to set the chain in motion in the first place.



That is a good illustration. The book in the illustration is useful for showing the existence of a "pre-condition." Without it there could be no cause-effect; and at the same time there is nothing in the cause-effect series to establish how the book came to be.


----------



## Toasty (May 27, 2014)

Claudiu said:


> Toasty said:
> 
> 
> > Claudiu said:
> ...



In terms of physics, time cannot be infinite because if it were infinite, the universe would have run out of energy by now.

An actual infinite cannot be traversed. Suppose I attempt to travel to an infinitely distant point in space. I would never arrive at my destination. Even if I had an infinite amount of time, I would still not arrive at my destination.


----------

