Turtles all the way down. Any logical problem?

[Speakpigeon]

Assumptions can be entirely gratuitous. No justification is necessary as far as logic is concerned. The OP is strictly about the logic of the idea. Not at all about the reality or otherwise of what is assumed.
EB

Exactly my point. Any conclusion can be "logically" drawn but that conclusion is dependent on the premise offered.

What do you mean exactly here by putting the word 'logically' in between quotation marks? Do you mean something that's not logical?

Start with a valid premise and a valid logical and real world conclusion will be drawn.

Start with a questionable premise and a logically valid but questionable real world conclusion will be drawn.

Start with a nonsense premise and a logically valid but nonsense real world conclusion can be drawn.

Sure, but that's really just a derail. You may want to start your own thread about that if you have some pent up frustration to vent about this topic, perhaps about "logical" conclusions that may not be logical at all.
EB

 

[Random Person]

I thought I could save some time, but I'll wait until this morphs into the First Cause Argument.

You initial answer was a derail, nothing like "saving time".

The only way to save time would be to give a straightforward answer, something you never do beyond repeating your mantra.

You seem to have a very confused notion of what is logic and how it works.

The question is very simple: Each event in the past has been caused by a prior event. What would be the logical problem with this idea?

You have an answer or you don't. If you have one, the only way to save time is to post it here and now.
EB

There was a few philosophy and math professors that thought I understood logic pretty well.

 

[Random Person]

Members who have read this thread in the last 3 days: 23
BH, Juma, seyorni, Jobar, James Brown, Iznomneak, The AntiChris, Underseer, Tharmas, Bomb#20, Wiploc, Speakpigeon, abaddon, fast, skepticalbip, WAB, thebeave, Lion IRC, Old Woman in Purple, Poppa Popobawa

So out of the 20 people who visited this thread, outside myself but putting Random Person back in, no one exhibited any logical contradiction that there could have been with this idea that each event in the past has been caused by a prior event.

I can't be sure of what the magnificent fourteen who haven't participated in the poll think but I would assume that the perspective of coming up with a smelly, juicy contradiction if you had one would have been too difficult to resist.

So, here is the score:

Speakpigeon 1 - Random Person 0​

Case closed.
EB

EDIT
And why isn't Random Person listed as having visited despite having posted three times since yesterday?

The case is never closed. The only way you can score any points is if you declare yourself the scorekeeper.

I am not listed because I am posting from the time before the Big Bang.

 

[fast]

I thought I could save some time, but I'll wait until this morphs into the First Cause Argument.

You initial answer was a derail, nothing like "saving time".

The only way to save time would be to give a straightforward answer, something you never do beyond repeating your mantra.

You seem to have a very confused notion of what is logic and how it works.

The question is very simple: Each event in the past has been caused by a prior event. What would be the logical problem with this idea?

You have an answer or you don't. If you have one, the only way to save time is to post it here and now.
EB

There was a few philosophy and math professors that thought I understood logic pretty well.

Do you find what I said to be a logical contradiction? If you do, the relevance of the question should help shine some light on your assessment of the OP's question.

 

[Speakpigeon]

I thought I could save some time, but I'll wait until this morphs into the First Cause Argument.

You initial answer was a derail, nothing like "saving time".

The only way to save time would be to give a straightforward answer, something you never do beyond repeating your mantra.

You seem to have a very confused notion of what is logic and how it works.

The question is very simple: Each event in the past has been caused by a prior event. What would be the logical problem with this idea?

You have an answer or you don't. If you have one, the only way to save time is to post it here and now.
EB

There was a few philosophy and math professors that thought I understood logic pretty well.

You're clearly delusional as to your ability now if not then also.

And you still haven't answered this simple question of logic: Each event in the past has been caused by a prior event. What would be the logical problem with this idea?
EB

 

[Random Person]

There was a few philosophy and math professors that thought I understood logic pretty well.

You're clearly delusional as to your ability now if not then also.

And you still haven't answered this simple question of logic: Each event in the past has been caused by a prior event. What would be the logical problem with this idea?
EB

The most obvious logical problem with this idea is you.

 

[Lion IRC]

I didn't vote the first option because I think an infinite regression of prior causes is plausible.
I merely agree that it's a logically possible menu option.
This is metaphysics and if you want gonzo you can have it.
In the real observable world perpetual motion runs into difficulties.

 

[fast]

I didn't vote the first option because I think an infinite regression of prior causes is plausible.
I merely agree that it's a logically possible menu option.
This is metaphysics and if you want gonzo you can have it.
In the real observable world perpetual motion runs into difficulties.

Yikes!

You say why you didn't vote for the first option, and the reason given includes, as you put it, "plausibility," yet you articulate that you merely agree that it's "logically possible," indicating that maybe you didn't mean to say "plausible" but rather possible--but not necessarily to likely be a plausible "physically possibility" as you also speak of difficulties. It makes me wonder if like you say, you agree that it's a logical possibility, so I'm not so sure your reasoning for not voting the first option jibes with your explanation.

It might not be logically possible, but until we can eliminate the doubt, there seems to be no guarantee that the hidden implications in his statement guarantees a contradiction, so it seems to me that there's no readily identifiable contradiction.

 

[Lion IRC]

There is quite a difference between something being possible and impossible.
But plausible and implausible things can both be true notwithstanding the degree of plausibility.

 

[Rhea]

EDIT
And why isn't Random Person listed as having visited despite having posted three times since yesterday?

because his actions were uncaused.

 

[fast]

There is quite a difference between something being possible and impossible.
But plausible and implausible things can both be true notwithstanding the degree of plausibility.

Right, but neither plausibility nor implausibility has a bearing on logical possibility, yet you said plausibility had a bearing on your not voting.

 

[Lion IRC]

I said turtles all the way down (past-eternal regression of prior causes) was a logical possibility despite holding a belief that it is highly implausible. (I actually think it's false.) But there's no inconsistency in admitting something is technically a possibility albeit extremely hard to believe.

I actually did vote BTW

 

[fast]

I said turtles all the way down (past-eternal regression of prior causes) was a logical possibility despite holding a belief that it is highly implausible. (I actually think it's false.) But there's no inconsistency in admitting something is technically a possibility albeit extremely hard to believe.

I actually did vote BTW

I'm fine with what you're saying now. It's what you said then that I've been focused on. One of the issues speakpigeon had with Random Person stems from Random Person not keeping his eye on the ball. Specifically, I've assessed speakpigeon's inquiry to be based on whether the statement in question concealed a logical contradiction--as opposed to merely any other logical problem. I gather that from not only his comments in the thread but also from the way the options were structured.

I also figured out (apparently correctly) that it is not the case that you have allowed your belief concerning plausibility to interfere with your assessment regarding logical possibility.

We're good.

 

[Speakpigeon]

There was a few philosophy and math professors that thought I understood logic pretty well.

You're clearly delusional as to your ability now if not then also.

And you still haven't answered this simple question of logic: Each event in the past has been caused by a prior event. What would be the logical problem with this idea?
EB

The most obvious logical problem with this idea is you.

And you think that's good logic?!

Well, I guess we all know what the score is now.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

I didn't vote the first option because I think an infinite regression of prior causes is plausible.
I merely agree that it's a logically possible menu option.
This is metaphysics and if you want gonzo you can have it.
In the real observable world perpetual motion runs into difficulties.

Derail.

The question is about logic, not about plausibility.

The inability of several posters here, well, at least two, you and skepticalbip, three if we count underseer, to stick to addressing the OP's question without going into questions of plausibility, suggests to me that your sense of logic may easily become ineffective as soon as your emotional response to your personal experience of the world kicks in. You should watch yourselves.

Most people here would agree that an infinite past is not particularly plausible. We just don't know and I don't see how we could ever get to know either way. But why get so uncomfortable at the question of logic that you can't stop yourself from irrelevantly insist that the thing, while not illogical, isn't plausible? Beats me.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

I had this private message from Random Person:

Thread: Turtles all the way down. Any logical problem?
Your delusion is apparently boundless

Either the guy is completely unable to articulate anything in a rational way or he's just not here to explain anything.

Either way, I would rate untermensche's performance as much more impressive than that of Random Person.

We thought we'd reached the bottom but no. There was still some considerable way to go.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

EDIT
And why isn't Random Person listed as having visited despite having posted three times since yesterday?

because his actions were uncaused.

It would be only logical that as soon as you post your avatar appears in the list of visitors.

But, I agree, it's a lost cause.
EB

 

[Lion IRC]

I didn't vote the first option because I think an infinite regression of prior causes is plausible.
I merely agree that it's a logically possible menu option.
This is metaphysics and if you want gonzo you can have it.
In the real observable world perpetual motion runs into difficulties.

Derail.

The question is about logic, not about plausibility.

The inability of several posters here, well, at least two, you and skepticalbip, three if we count underseer, to stick to addressing the OP's question without going into questions of plausibility, suggests to me that your sense of logic may easily become ineffective as soon as your emotional response to your personal experience of the world kicks in. You should watch yourselves.

Most people here would agree that an infinite past is not particularly plausible. We just don't know and I don't see how we could ever get to know either way. But why get so uncomfortable at the question of logic that you can't stop yourself from irrelevantly insist that the thing, while not illogical, isn't plausible? Beats me.
EB

OK
You're right. It's off topic for me to say anything else about your Op than - yes, it's a possibility
Sorry for the extra comments.
Bye.

 

[Random Person]

I had this private message from Random Person:

Thread: Turtles all the way down. Any logical problem?
Your delusion is apparently boundless

Either the guy is completely unable to articulate anything in a rational way or he's just not here to explain anything.

Either way, I would rate untermensche's performance as much more impressive than that of Random Person.

We thought we'd reached the bottom but no. There was still some considerable way to go.
EB

It wasn't a private Message. It was a reputation comment in response to your negative reputation comment to me.

 

[Speakpigeon]

I had this private message from Random Person:

Thread: Turtles all the way down. Any logical problem?
Your delusion is apparently boundless

Either the guy is completely unable to articulate anything in a rational way or he's just not here to explain anything.

Either way, I would rate untermensche's performance as much more impressive than that of Random Person.

We thought we'd reached the bottom but no. There was still some considerable way to go.
EB

It wasn't a private Message. It was a reputation comment in response to your negative reputation comment to me.

Sure, but that was a private message nonetheless.

My comment had been a public comment on your post. I don't know you. I can only comment on what people say in their posts.

Obviously, I wouldn't know whatever you may mean by "private Message" with a capital "M", but irrespective of that it was still a private message. If you didn't understand that then, now you should.
EB