Turtles all the way down. Any logical problem?

[Random Person]

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...

What's the point of scientific research if not for discovering a cause? How would quantum physicists ever get funding?

 

[Juma]

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.

What doesnt? It is you that doesnt make sense.

You have once again failed to show any logical contradiction.

 

[Random Person]

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.

What doesnt? It is you that doesnt make sense.

You have once again failed to show any logical contradiction.

You can't seem to wrap your mind around it, nut it's obviously true that nothing can begin at infinity. Give an example if you think it's possible.

 

[untermensche]

The very idea of beginning implies a starting point.

So does the idea of progression.

If there is no starting point to say something began is absurd.

If there is no starting point there is no possible progression.

 

[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.

What doesnt? It is you that doesnt make sense.

You have once again failed to show any logical contradiction.

Do you understand that the negative integers begin at something defined (-1)?

You cannot begin at the undefined (infinity).

 

[fast]

The 40th domino falling depends on the 20th domino falling. If the 20th doesn't fall, the 40th won't. --assuming no other factors, vibrations, bird poop, etc. Is that the message?

 

[Juma]

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.

What doesnt? It is you that doesnt make sense.

You have once again failed to show any logical contradiction.

Do you understand that the negative integers begin at something defined (-1)?

You cannot begin at the undefined (infinity).

It is you that keeps talking about a beginning. I dont.
Show that there is a logical contradiction!

 

[Juma]

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.

That is all you got?
Your intellectual dishonesty is telling.

 

[fast]

Do you understand that the negative integers begin at something defined (-1)?

You cannot begin at the undefined (infinity).

It is you that keeps talking about a beginning. I dont.
Show that there is a logical contradiction!

He does not share our understanding of what it means to say of something that it's a logical contradiction. That is an impediment that brings to the table a unique challenge, especially in light of the fact he will not budge even by stipulating what you mean by the use of that technical term. You may try to ask the very same thing you're trying to ask with words that do not include complex terms. You might want to avoid "logical" altogether.

You and I (and others too) accept, for instance, that some physical impossibilities are nevertheless logically possible. He does not accept that. To him, it is illogical. That said, a different path you should take to overcome the barrier to communication. He will not relent.

 

[bilby]

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.

What doesnt? It is you that doesnt make sense.

You have once again failed to show any logical contradiction.

I wonder where he thinks the set of ALL integers begins.

 

[fromderinside]

What is it about turtles all the way down that forces a contingency? I see three problems here. First is there a contingency. Need the exact prior event consistently, in isolation, always occur just before the posterior or caused event. And if the previous claim is true that there is a contingency does that mean previous events are responsible for subsequent events. Does the previous event cause the subsequent event.

I'm pretty sure we can't demand there is a consistent contingency between events since we can't know when, in order, a particular event is actually the previous event. Sure an electron decays, but what are the progressions involved since the events in question are beyond our ability to observe nor do we know what events occur or whether other events can be interposed.

Before I get any further wrapped around my current conceptual axle How about i step back and let better minds attack what I see as those initial problems with precedence and cause.

 

[Speakpigeon]

The very idea of beginning implies a starting point.

So does the idea of progression.

If there is no starting point to say something began is absurd.

If there is no starting point there is no possible progression.

Maybe we can agree on something at least. The necessity of a first event in the past, a beginning, would contradict the idea that each event in the past was caused by a prior event. That much seems indeed obvious to me.

So, all you have to do to falsify the idea of an infinite regress of causes is to prove that a first event is somehow necessary.

I see only two ways for you to do that. First, if we actually knew that a first event is necessary. Well, we don't. I also don't see how anybody could travel back in time to look at whether there was indeed a first event. Nobody will do that and even doing that wouldn't be conclusive.

The second possibility would be to find something else, itself somehow necessary, and logically implying the necessity of a first event.

You haven't done that for now. You don't even seem to understand that's what you would have to do. So, take some time to think about it and come back with something.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

What is it about turtles all the way down that forces a contingency?

Well, clearly, the whole thing is definitely contingent on God's willingness to marshal the necessary contingent of turtles. That may require a few prayers. Would you be up for it?

And that's just as far as your first sentence is concerned!
EB

 

[fromderinside]

Thank ewe very much is contingent on sheepishness?

 

[Speakpigeon]

Thank ewe very much is contingent on sheepishness?

meh-meh-meh all the way down and counting them.
EB

 

[fromderinside]

...and as it is with

Determinism: The world is governed by (or is under the sway of) determinism if and only if, given a specified way things are at a time t, the way things go thereafter is fixed as a matter of natural law. *

Why, if contingency is important, is it that contingency be explained as meaning the laws of nature. Which put otherwise remains a matter of undetermined faith in there being natural order. It comes down to waving hands when things are not measurable or even knowable.

So why not ewe's being level of sheepishness?

*from: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/determinism-causal/#Int

 

[Speakpigeon]

...and as it is with

Determinism: The world is governed by (or is under the sway of) determinism if and only if, given a specified way things are at a time t, the way things go thereafter is fixed as a matter of natural law. *

Why, if contingency is important, is it that contingency be explained as meaning the laws of nature. Which put otherwise remains a matter of undetermined faith in there being natural order. It comes down to waving hands when things are not measurable or even knowable.

So why not ewe's being level of sheepishness?

*from: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/determinism-causal/#Int

Laws of nature?!

It seems you're in love with academic philosophy but few words have an absolute meaning. "Contingent" is not one of them. Look at the definition of "contingent" as used in logic:

4. Logic True only under certain conditions; not necessarily or universally true: a contingent proposition.

See? No reference to "laws of nature" in there.

Also, you seem to do your best not to understand what these people are saying, which is that the kind of contingency they're talking about is the one to do with the laws of nature, assuming therefore that there are indeed laws of nature to begin with. And then of course, if you now assume we're not sure that there are laws of nature, then obviously we're also not so sure about the contingency we're talking about. Big deal.

Specifically, you're mixing ontology and epistemology. Assuming as these people do that there are laws of nature is an ontological assumption. And then assuming like you do that we're not so sure that there really are laws of nature is entirely an epistemological assumption.

Readers are supposed to understand by themselves what assumptions are used. Those who don't will fail to understand what is being said. Their problem.

Now if you meant that philosophy can't even be taken as a consistent description of reality, you win.

No surprise, though. Science also has no consistent description of the more simple physical world.

There may even be a mathematical theorem that would be relevant to that failure but I derail.
EB

 

[fromderinside]

I didn't write that thing I quoted it as part of a standard definition of causal determinism. Science has been quite consistent in useably explaining various real world states so I'm not going to reject it just because I can't prove that it does address laws of nature. In the statement Laws of Nature are used as as is descriptions of the relationships so determined to be useable. I'm not going to reject usability as law just because I can't prove it it is law. There need to be positive falsification for such proofs to be rejected.

 

[Speakpigeon]

I don't see any logical problem... 11 votes. 78.57%.

Certainly good enough for me.

And no dissenter has been able to articulate at all why they believe the idea of an infinite regress would be a logical contradiction.

Only one actually tried.

Not even the two who claim they have supreme logical power could offer any cogent explanation...
EB

 

[fromderinside]

It must be comforting, that aura of warm feeling surrounding such a non sequitur after posting.