Turtles all the way down. Any logical problem?

[Speakpigeon]

This is the ultimate question here.

How is there a progression that never begins?

Can anyone actually try to answer this?

I already told you.


See here:

Can you have a progression without a beginning to the progression?

If so how?

The question of how there could be a progression without a beginning may be interesting but the fact that we wouldn't know the answer to that has no relevance to the logic of the idea that each event in the past has been caused by a prior event.

So, you may want to start you own thread with this scientific question. See what happens then. Me, I asked a logical question, not a scientific one. Hey, I might even have an answer! Try me!

You just prefer to ignore what people say and go on repeating yourself. It's just a waste of time to talk to you.

How there could be a progression without a beginning is a scientific question. We don't know the answer. Meaning you yourself don't actually know that a progression needs a beginning. It's just your preconception that it does. So it's no argument that an infinite regress is impossible. That how logic works but you don't seem to understand much about logic. You only argument is your preconception that a progression needs a beginning. Where's the proof of that?
EB

 

[untermensche]

The question of how there could be a progression without a beginning may be interesting but the fact that we wouldn't know the answer to that has no relevance to the logic of the idea that each event in the past has been caused by a prior event.

No no no no.

We do have the answer.

When we see any progression, ANY progression, we know it had to have begun.

You cannot have a progression unless the progression begins.

To have a progression that does not begin is irrational and cannot be demonstrated to be possible.

The idea of "no beginning" in terms of a progression is a religious idea, a miraculous idea, not a rational idea.

So we know beyond doubt that if we see a progression it must have begun.

If it began then there are events that did not have a preceding event. The first event. Or the first events.

The idea there has to just be one first event is something that comes from theology and their one god.

For a progression of events to begin there must be a first event or first events.

We do know these things beyond doubt.

Some however cannot see it.

 

[Random Person]

How there could be a progression without a beginning is a scientific question. We don't know the answer. Meaning you yourself don't actually know that a progression needs a beginning. It's just your preconception that it does. So it's no argument that an infinite regress is impossible. That how logic works but you don't seem to understand much about logic. You only argument is your preconception that a progression needs a beginning. Where's the proof of that?
EB

How there could be a progression without a beginning is not a scientific question, it can't be. It's a scientific principle that all effects have causes. This is a conundrum that's not going to have a scientific solution.

Maybe it's a philosophical question but I don't know if philosophers ever come to a conclusion much less a consensus.

 

[Juma]

lets clear this statement up:
1) p1= ”any progression of events requires a first event”
2) p2=”there is always one event that has no preceding event in any progression of events”
3) p1=>p2
which fails on the fact that you havent shown p1 to be true.

How can you have a progression of events without a first event?

How would that happen?

Please be specific.

that is not the question here.
the question is ”if we assume an infinite sequence of events will that result in a logical contradiction”
it is up to you to show that there is a logical contradiction.

 

[Juma]

How there could be a progression without a beginning is a scientific question. We don't know the answer. Meaning you yourself don't actually know that a progression needs a beginning. It's just your preconception that it does. So it's no argument that an infinite regress is impossible. That how logic works but you don't seem to understand much about logic. You only argument is your preconception that a progression needs a beginning. Where's the proof of that?
EB

How there could be a progression without a beginning is not a scientific question, it can't be. It's a scientific principle that all effects have causes. This is a conundrum that's not going to have a scientific solution.

Maybe it's a philosophical question but I don't know if philosophers ever come to a conclusion much less a consensus.

that ”all effects have causes” is not true. it just the empirical observation that the macroscopical world behavs so.
quantum mechanics does not behave in that way.
and we have no knowledge about how it would is in other universa.

 

[Random Person]

How there could be a progression without a beginning is a scientific question. We don't know the answer. Meaning you yourself don't actually know that a progression needs a beginning. It's just your preconception that it does. So it's no argument that an infinite regress is impossible. That how logic works but you don't seem to understand much about logic. You only argument is your preconception that a progression needs a beginning. Where's the proof of that?
EB

How there could be a progression without a beginning is not a scientific question, it can't be. It's a scientific principle that all effects have causes. This is a conundrum that's not going to have a scientific solution.

Maybe it's a philosophical question but I don't know if philosophers ever come to a conclusion much less a consensus.

that ”all effects have causes” is not true. it just the empirical observation that the macroscopical world behavs so.
quantum mechanics does not behave in that way.
and we have no knowledge about how it would is in other universa.

Nope. Science assumes that all effects have causes even if we don't know what they are. There's no magic or miracles in science. Just like there is no crying in baseball.

 

[Juma]

The question of how there could be a progression without a beginning may be interesting but the fact that we wouldn't know the answer to that has no relevance to the logic of the idea that each event in the past has been caused by a prior event.

No no no no.

We do have the answer.

When we see any progression, ANY progression, we know it had to have begun.

You cannot have a progression unless the progression begins.

To have a progression that does not begin is irrational and cannot be demonstrated to be possible.

The idea of "no beginning" in terms of a progression is a religious idea, a miraculous idea, not a rational idea.

So we know beyond doubt that if we see a progression it must have begun.

If it began then there are events that did not have a preceding event. The first event. Or the first events.

The idea there has to just be one first event is something that comes from theology and their one god.

For a progression of events to begin there must be a first event or first events.

We do know these things beyond doubt.

Some however cannot see it.

Waving your hands snd yelling ”it is obvious” in no way shows that there is a logical contradiction.
Do your fucking homework and provide a real logical contradiction or shut the fuck up!

 

[untermensche]

lets clear this statement up:
1) p1= ”any progression of events requires a first event”
2) p2=”there is always one event that has no preceding event in any progression of events”
3) p1=>p2
which fails on the fact that you havent shown p1 to be true.

How can you have a progression of events without a first event?

How would that happen?

Please be specific.

that is not the question here.
the question is ”if we assume an infinite sequence of events will that result in a logical contradiction”
it is up to you to show that there is a logical contradiction.

The assumption is illogical.

Yes. We are permitted to say that we are describing an illogical situation.

 

[Juma]

that ”all effects have causes” is not true. it just the empirical observation that the macroscopical world behavs so.
quantum mechanics does not behave in that way.
and we have no knowledge about how it would is in other universa.

Nope. Science assumes that all effects have causes even if we don't know what they are. There's no magic or miracles in science. Just like there is no crying in baseball.

Ever heard of Quantum Mechanics?

 

[Random Person]

that ”all effects have causes” is not true. it just the empirical observation that the macroscopical world behavs so.
quantum mechanics does not behave in that way.
and we have no knowledge about how it would is in other universa.

Nope. Science assumes that all effects have causes even if we don't know what they are. There's no magic or miracles in science. Just like there is no crying in baseball.

Ever heard of Quantum Mechanics?

I sure have. Do you think by invoking its name you have provided a counter point?

- - - Updated - - -

The question of how there could be a progression without a beginning may be interesting but the fact that we wouldn't know the answer to that has no relevance to the logic of the idea that each event in the past has been caused by a prior event.

No no no no.

We do have the answer.

When we see any progression, ANY progression, we know it had to have begun.

You cannot have a progression unless the progression begins.

To have a progression that does not begin is irrational and cannot be demonstrated to be possible.

The idea of "no beginning" in terms of a progression is a religious idea, a miraculous idea, not a rational idea.

So we know beyond doubt that if we see a progression it must have begun.

If it began then there are events that did not have a preceding event. The first event. Or the first events.

The idea there has to just be one first event is something that comes from theology and their one god.

For a progression of events to begin there must be a first event or first events.

We do know these things beyond doubt.

Some however cannot see it.

Waving your hands snd yelling ”it is obvious” in no way shows that there is a logical contradiction.
Do your fucking homework and provide a real logical contradiction or shut the fuck up!

Anytime you find your self this angry you may assume that you are wrong.

 

[Juma]

How there could be a progression without a beginning is a scientific question. We don't know the answer. Meaning you yourself don't actually know that a progression needs a beginning. It's just your preconception that it does. So it's no argument that an infinite regress is impossible. That how logic works but you don't seem to understand much about logic. You only argument is your preconception that a progression needs a beginning. Where's the proof of that?
EB

How there could be a progression without a beginning is not a scientific question, it can't be. It's a scientific principle that all effects have causes. This is a conundrum that's not going to have a scientific solution.

Maybe it's a philosophical question but I don't know if philosophers ever come to a conclusion much less a consensus.

On the contrary:
If all effects must have cases there cannot gave been a beginning.
Since if there where a first event it was uncaused, which is a contradiction and thus the assumption that there was a first event cannot be true.

 

[Juma]

Ever heard of Quantum Mechanics?

I sure have. Do you think by invoking its name you have provided a counter point?

- - - Updated - - -

The question of how there could be a progression without a beginning may be interesting but the fact that we wouldn't know the answer to that has no relevance to the logic of the idea that each event in the past has been caused by a prior event.

No no no no.

We do have the answer.

When we see any progression, ANY progression, we know it had to have begun.

You cannot have a progression unless the progression begins.

To have a progression that does not begin is irrational and cannot be demonstrated to be possible.

The idea of "no beginning" in terms of a progression is a religious idea, a miraculous idea, not a rational idea.

So we know beyond doubt that if we see a progression it must have begun.

If it began then there are events that did not have a preceding event. The first event. Or the first events.

The idea there has to just be one first event is something that comes from theology and their one god.

For a progression of events to begin there must be a first event or first events.

We do know these things beyond doubt.

Some however cannot see it.

Waving your hands snd yelling ”it is obvious” in no way shows that there is a logical contradiction.
Do your fucking homework and provide a real logical contradiction or shut the fuck up!

Anytime you find your self this angry you may assume that you are wrong.

No, I am angry because Untermensche write shit. And has done so in over 1000 posts.


If you nniw Quantum Mechanics you also know that the vacuum is full of uncaused events.
But that is of no importance for this discussion since thehypotesis that all events must be caused leads to the conclusion that there cannot be a first event and thus the sequence of events must be infinite...

 

[Speakpigeon]

The question of how there could be a progression without a beginning may be interesting but the fact that we wouldn't know the answer to that has no relevance to the logic of the idea that each event in the past has been caused by a prior event.

No no no no.

We do have the answer.

When we see any progression, ANY progression, we know it had to have begun.

You cannot have a progression unless the progression begins.

Sorry, I certainly don't know that and I don't think anybody does. You'll have to prove it's true. Can you prove it's true? No, obviously, you can't. Case closed.

To have a progression that does not begin is irrational and cannot be demonstrated to be possible.

It doesn't need to be demonstrated to be possible for it to be possible just as nothing needs to be demonstrated to exist for it to exist.

The idea of "no beginning" in terms of a progression is a religious idea, a miraculous idea, not a rational idea.

And that is just an idiotic claim.

So we know beyond doubt that if we see a progression it must have begun.

No, we don't.

You'll have to prove it's true and you can't because most likely nobody could.

If it began then there are events that did not have a preceding event. The first event. Or the first events.

The idea there has to just be one first event is something that comes from theology and their one god.

For a progression of events to begin there must be a first event or first events.

We do know these things beyond doubt.

Some however cannot see it.

See? You're just repeating yourself. Over and over again. Just pathetic.

So you just have to prove that there could be no progression without a beginning. If you prove that, I'll concede the point. See? Easy, no?
EB

 

[untermensche]

Total dodge.

Not angry in the least.

But with unruly students you sometimes have to say: "Wake Up! You have the wrong answer."

Two choices.

A first event or first events. This is rational. Anybody can understand that a progression of events can possibly occur after a first event or first events.

Or no first event.

Nobody can understand this or explain how it could be possible.

You have sided with the irrational.

And are dodging it by crying about some mysterious anger you see in the word "no".

 

[Speakpigeon]

How there could be a progression without a beginning is a scientific question. We don't know the answer. Meaning you yourself don't actually know that a progression needs a beginning. It's just your preconception that it does. So it's no argument that an infinite regress is impossible. That how logic works but you don't seem to understand much about logic. You only argument is your preconception that a progression needs a beginning. Where's the proof of that?
EB

How there could be a progression without a beginning is not a scientific question, it can't be.

Outside any scientific answer, all you will get is just the idea that there's no apparent contradiction in the idea of an infinite regress of causes. And that's all we need since that's all that is submitted in the OP here.

Similarly, I don't think anyone could explain how it came about that there was suddenly a beginning to time.

We don't even know whether there was any beginning. And I don't see how anybody could prove there was one.

It's a scientific principle that all effects have causes.

It's not a scientific principle, it's a stupid tautology. The word "effect" implies a cause. Sure, all effects have a cause but not all events need to be "effects". In particular, a beginning in time would be an event without a cause. See?

Still, if your point was that all events have a cause, then you should agree with the OP's idea that each event in the past has been caused by a prior event, and reject the idea of a beginning in time since a beginning in time would be an event without a cause. What do you think?

This is a conundrum that's not going to have a scientific solution.

Probably not but then the OP is only a question of logic.

Maybe it's a philosophical question but I don't know if philosophers ever come to a conclusion much less a consensus.

Ten people here do seem to have reached a clear consensus.
EB

 

[Juma]

Total dodge.

Not angry in the least.

But with unruly students you sometimes have to say: "Wake Up! You have the wrong answer."

Two choices.

A first event or first events. This is rational. Anybody can understand that a progression of events can possibly occur after a first event or first events.

Or no first event.

Nobody can understand this or explain how it could be possible.

You have sided with the irrational.

And are dodging it by crying about some mysterious anger you see in the word "no".

what is it you can explain with a first event that you cannot witout one?

 

[untermensche]

Nothing is explained by either.

But one makes logical sense and one is undefinable.

What does it mean to have a progression but it never had a beginning?

A progression that does not begin rationally is a progression that does not exist.

 

[Juma]

Nothing is explained by either.

But one makes logical sense and one is undefinable.

What does it mean to have a progression but it never had a beginning?

A progression that does not begin rationally is a progression that does not exist.

A progression without a beginning is a progression without a first element. One obvious example is the set of negative numbers that begins in negative infinity and ends at -1.

What is your problem?

 

[untermensche]

The set of negative integers begins at negative one and there is no lowest end value.

Nothing can begin at infinity.

That also makes no rational sense.

 

[Random Person]

How there could be a progression without a beginning is a scientific question. We don't know the answer. Meaning you yourself don't actually know that a progression needs a beginning. It's just your preconception that it does. So it's no argument that an infinite regress is impossible. That how logic works but you don't seem to understand much about logic. You only argument is your preconception that a progression needs a beginning. Where's the proof of that?
EB

How there could be a progression without a beginning is not a scientific question, it can't be. It's a scientific principle that all effects have causes. This is a conundrum that's not going to have a scientific solution.

Maybe it's a philosophical question but I don't know if philosophers ever come to a conclusion much less a consensus.

On the contrary:
If all effects must have cases there cannot gave been a beginning.
Since if there where a first event it was uncaused, which is a contradiction and thus the assumption that there was a first event cannot be true.

The assumption is one of expediency but not truth.