Turtles all the way down. Any logical problem?

[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.

Given what people voted in this poll, there's no obvious logical contradiction at all.

Given what people posted in this thread, there's no obvious logical problem at all.

You're the only one here to claim there's an obvious logical problem and yet you're not prepared or you are unable to articulate any argument in support of your claim. Funny, that!

If there was any obvious problem or contradiction, I think some posters at least would have spotted it. No one spotted any such. You're the only one claiming there's one. And you can't articulate it. What a shame.
EB

 

[Random Person]

The most obvious logical problem with this idea is you.

Given what people voted in this poll, there's no obvious logical contradiction at all.

Given what people posted in this thread, there's no obvious logical problem at all.

You're the only one here to claim there's an obvious logical problem and yet you're not prepared or you are unable to articulate any argument in support of your claim. Funny, that!

If there was any obvious problem or contradiction, I think some posters at least would have spotted it. No one spotted any such. You're the only one claiming there's one. And you can't articulate it. What a shame.
EB

What are you talking about?

 

[Speakpigeon]

What are you talking about?

What do you mean?
EB

 

[Rhea]

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.

Just a semantic observation:

It took me a triple-take to parse this, but it appears to me that people misunderstood Lion's response.

It seems that he is saying that he _DID_ vote for number one, but the reason wasn't he that agreed with plausibility, rather, he voted yes on number one because it was at least (barely) logically possible. If you replace the first period with a semi-colon, it helps.

re-written:
I voted option one, but only because it's logically possible, not because it's actually plausible. Since this is metaphysics, I'm willing to answer with an extreme. In the real world, though, my answer would be bound by physics and I wouldn't be so willing to make a gonzo answer.

 

[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.

Just a semantic observation:

It took me a triple-take to parse this, but it appears to me that people misunderstood Lion's response.

It seems that he is saying that he _DID_ vote for number one, but the reason wasn't he that agreed with plausibility, rather, he voted yes on number one because it was at least (barely) logically possible. If you replace the first period with a semi-colon, it helps.

re-written:
I voted option one, but only because it's logically possible, not because it's actually plausible. Since this is metaphysics, I'm willing to answer with an extreme. In the real world, though, my answer would be bound by physics and I wouldn't be so willing to make a gonzo answer.

Oh dang. I misinterpreted the "because."

My bad.

 

[fast]

I didn't go to the store because I was tired.

Vs the exact same wording

I didn't go to the store because I was tired; I didn't go because I had no gas.

The first appears to be giving a reason for why I didn't go, but in the second, the exact same wording disambiguated by the follow up shows that it wasn't a reason that's being given but a denial that it was the reason.

 

[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.

Just a semantic observation:

It took me a triple-take to parse this, but it appears to me that people misunderstood Lion's response.

It seems that he is saying that he _DID_ vote for number one, but the reason wasn't he that agreed with plausibility, rather, he voted yes on number one because it was at least (barely) logically possible. If you replace the first period with a semi-colon, it helps.

re-written:
I voted option one, but only because it's logically possible, not because it's actually plausible. Since this is metaphysics, I'm willing to answer with an extreme. In the real world, though, my answer would be bound by physics and I wouldn't be so willing to make a gonzo answer.

Yes, you're right, and it's worse than that...

A proper sentence would have been: I didn't vote the first option because I think an infinite regression of prior causes is plausible but because blah-blah-blah. However, given that he said he voted for the first option which is that the idea is logical, the "but" bit should have been "but because I think an infinite regression of prior causes is logically possible".

So, why didn't he say it? Because, I think, like several people around here, he feels aggrieved about logic per se, or about its use or abuse, or about having to admit to the logicality of the idea of turtles all the way down. Or about all of these. Something explicitly confirmed by the rest of his post.

And I already pointed out the bizarrerie of this attitude, apparently common to several posters here:

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

 

[fast]

It's a natural tendency, I suspect.

A "just answer the question please" to the question, "isn't it logically possible that reinstituting slavery can bring more benefit than harm even in today's society?" is unlikely to elicit the requested point blank answer without fear of mistaken espousal.

 

[Speakpigeon]

It's a natural tendency, I suspect.

A "just answer the question please" to the question, "isn't it logically possible that reinstititing slavery can bring more benefit than harm even in today's society?" is unlikely to elicit the requested point blank answer without fear of mistaken espousal.

Good point, thanks.

I grant you there's a parallel. This also goes on to show that our sense of logic can be silenced by our emotional involvement with the subject matter.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Only 10 votes out of 25 visitors... Whoa!

I'd really like to hear from abstentionists why they don't vote.

Is the question so difficult that you don't know what to vote?

You're not sure enough there isn't any logical problem with turtles all the way down?

If you don't want to say it here, please send me a private message. I'll respect your anonymity.
EB

 

[Wiploc]

I'd really like to hear from abstentionists why they don't vote.

I did vote, but I'm willing to elaborate anyway:

I'd be happy to call eternal regress impossible if it weren't that the alternative is the universe happening without cause. Neither of those seems to me more plausible than the other.

And then Hawking comes up with the finite-but-unbound option, which also makes no sense to me. But he has authority, a right to an opinion.

If a layman picks one of those and says, "This one is obviously false, so the other one must be true," I figure that layman is choosing for emotional reasons, not because she has solved cosmology.

Bertrand Russell wrote something like this: "When the experts are agreed, the layman does well not to hold a contrary opinion. When the experts disagree, the layman does well not to hold any opinion at all."

On this question, since I can't figure it out myself and I'm not aware of a consensus of experts, I don't hold an opinion.

 

[WAB]

There ya go, Speakie, you twisted my arm enough so I voted, and I just knew that I'd be the only one who voted what I did.

While taking old Bertrand's advice well in hand, and discarding it, I am for a Prime Mover of some sort.

Anyone asks me to explain or define this Prime Mover: see Aristotle; if that doesn't work, see Spinoza.

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

 

[Speakpigeon]

I'd really like to hear from abstentionists why they don't vote.

I did vote, but I'm willing to elaborate anyway:

I'd be happy to call eternal regress impossible if it weren't that the alternative is the universe happening without cause. Neither of those seems to me more plausible than the other.

And then Hawking comes up with the finite-but-unbound option, which also makes no sense to me. But he has authority, a right to an opinion.

If a layman picks one of those and says, "This one is obviously false, so the other one must be true," I figure that layman is choosing for emotional reasons, not because she has solved cosmology.

Bertrand Russell wrote something like this: "When the experts are agreed, the layman does well not to hold a contrary opinion. When the experts disagree, the layman does well not to hold any opinion at all."

On this question, since I can't figure it out myself and I'm not aware of a consensus of experts, I don't hold an opinion.

Thanks for explaining your angle.

I can sympathise with the feeling you expressed of damn if I do, damn if I don't. Me, I see these two most favoured options of an infinite past with no beginning and finite past with a beginning as just two possibilities amongst possibly an infinite number of them. We're just lacking either imagination or motivation to explore beyond the most obvious ones. Loop time would be another. Beginning but within a larger universe where our time would loose the meaning it has for us. Etc. etc. etc.

I personally don't have a preference for any particular scenario, although I suspect the reality is much more twisted than our simplistic speculations suggest. Hawking's proposal seems to go in that direction but I suspect not far enough, although I don't believe we will be able to evidence anything beyond some simplistic model.

Still, I have to repeat that the question is not about the plausibility of the idea but about its logic. You should all be able to totally agree as to the logicality of the idea while being totally convinced it isn't true of reality, and indeed, vice versa.

I have to say I'm baffled that you should have no idea at all whether there is or there isn't a logical problem. I expected that not being able to think of any logical problem would be enough for people to vote for the first option "I don't see any logical problem".

This suggests you didn't vote to answer the question that was effectively asked but voted instead to accommodate your view that the idea is implausible.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

There ya go, Speakie, you twisted my arm enough so I voted, and I just knew that I'd be the only one who voted what I did.

While taking old Bertrand's advice well in hand, and discarding it, I am for a Prime Mover of some sort.

Anyone asks me to explain or define this Prime Mover: see Aristotle; if that doesn't work, see Spinoza.

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

Thanks for explaining.

I don't see that the Wiki article you linked provides any explanation to the effect that the idea of an infinite regress of causes would be logically problematic. And I won't plunge into Spinoza to see if he does just that somewhere.

So, if you believe the idea is a logical contradiction and that you can explain what it is, I'd very much like you to do so here and now. Still, I don't want to twist any part of your anatomy so, please, feel free to abstain.
EB

 

[WAB]

There ya go, Speakie, you twisted my arm enough so I voted, and I just knew that I'd be the only one who voted what I did.

While taking old Bertrand's advice well in hand, and discarding it, I am for a Prime Mover of some sort.

Anyone asks me to explain or define this Prime Mover: see Aristotle; if that doesn't work, see Spinoza.

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

Thanks for explaining.

I don't see that the Wiki article you linked provides any explanation to the effect that the idea of an infinite regress of causes would be logically problematic. And I won't plunge into Spinoza to see if he does just that somewhere.

So, if you believe the idea is a logical contradiction and that you can explain what it is, I'd very much like you to do so here and now. Still, I don't want to twist any part of your anatomy so, please, feel free to abstain.
EB

**I wound up in a botch** I had something but deleted it.

 

[Rhea]

Only 10 votes out of 25 visitors... Whoa!

I'd really like to hear from abstentionists why they don't vote.

Is the question so difficult that you don't know what to vote?

You're not sure enough there isn't any logical problem with turtles all the way down?

If you don't want to say it here, please send me a private message. I'll respect your anonymity.
EB

I didn’t vote because I looked at it and decided it required significantly more thought.
Then I thought and decided I had no idea.
By then I had forgotten the “no idea” was an option.

 

[Speakpigeon]

I didn’t vote because I looked at it and decided it required significantly more thought.
Then I thought and decided I had no idea.
By then I had forgotten the “no idea” was an option.

Fair enough.

I'm not convinced it's possible to have really no idea on this. I suspect you have some kind of non-logical misgiving about this question, and this may be what stops you from accepting there's no logical issue with it. There may be some part of your non-logical brain which is unhappy with the idea of turtles all the way down and somehow shuts down any expression of your sense of logic.

I guess an infinite regress of causes may be seen and resented as an outrageously profligate waste of resources. Would that ring a bell?
EB

 

[untermensche]

That is to say, let's assume each event in the past has been caused by a prior event. What would be the logical problem with this?

If we assume it is true it means before any observed event the events prior to it were without end.

If there is no end to the prior events how did the observed event occur?

If you observe any event you know beyond doubt the events prior to it were NOT without end.

But this is the wrong question and it seems to make some people lose the ability to reason.

The real question is: How can there be a progression of events without a first event?

Merely stating it is possible that events can progress without a start to the progression is stupidity.

Describing how it is possible is a reasonable explanation.

If somebody claims events can progress without a first event the burden is totally on them to explain exactly how it is possible.

How is it possible to have any progression without a start to the progression?

If the progression never begins then there is no progression.

(and only idiots think this has anything to do with god or some defense of imaginary entities. it is only about events and events without end.)

 

[Speakpigeon]

That is to say, let's assume each event in the past has been caused by a prior event. What would be the logical problem with this?

If we assume it is true it means before any observed event the events prior to it were without end.

If there is no end to the prior events how did the observed event occur?

If you observe any event you know beyond doubt the events prior to it were NOT without end.

But this is the wrong question and it seems to make some people lose the ability to reason.

The real question is: How can there be a progression of events without a first event?

Merely stating it is possible that events can progress without a start to the progression is stupidity.

Describing how it is possible is a reasonable explanation.

If somebody claims events can progress without a first event the burden is totally on them to explain exactly how it is possible.

How is it possible to have any progression without a start to the progression?

If the progression never begins then there is no progression.

(and only idiots think this has anything to do with god or some defense of imaginary entities. it is only about events and events without end.)

If there is no end to the prior events how did the observed event occur?

Easy, each event is caused by a prior event.

The real question is: How can there be a progression of events without a first event?

Easy, each event is caused by a prior event.

Describing how it is possible is a reasonable explanation.

I agree. To say that each event is caused by a prior event is both a description and a "reasonable explanation".

If somebody claims events can progress without a first event the burden is totally on them to explain exactly how it is possible.

Easy, each event is caused by a prior event.

How is it possible to have any progression without a start to the progression?

Easy, each event is caused by a prior event.

And that's it. I've said all there is to say and I suspect you did your best here so we're done. Clearly, I'm not going to ever convince you and on your side you've probably run out of arguments. Case closed.

So, thank you for trying.
EB

 

[untermensche]

If there is no end to the prior events how did the observed event occur?

Easy, each event is caused by a prior event.

This does not even approach addressing the point.

If the prior events were without end how did the present event occur?

It is a clear contradiction.

If prior events are without end they cannot ever complete and allow a new event to occur.