|
The infinite regress
|
View this Thread in Original format
| trancaholic |
| Has anyone ever come across elaborations on why any philosophical claim ending up in an infinite regress must necessarily be false? Is it solely due to the fact that any such claim - if true - doesn't really explain anything? And if so, why is elementary physics accepted? |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| quote: | Originally posted by trancaholic
Has anyone ever come across elaborations on why any philosophical claim ending up in an infinite regress must necessarily be false? |
I really don't think that they must necessarily be false, it's just that they usually turn out to be that way. I suppose these sorts of claims are the prime material for the use of Occam's razor (although, of course, Occam's razor is more of a general guidline and as such shouldn't be considered a proof of anything).
| quote: | | Is it solely due to the fact that any such claim - if true - doesn't really explain anything? |
In a way I guess that might be considered a sufficient but not necessary reason. A claim that ends up in an infinite regress is forced to do such a thing because it is basically flawed in it's 1st iteration, and is therefore attempting to improve on itself by introducing an infinite number of iterations that would approximate it closer to the actual truth. What is important here is whether the subsequent approximations actually do bring it closer to the truth or if they just keep the same distance or even increase it. In a way you might view it as a limit of a function or a number series. In other words, such infinitely iterating theory might prove to be either false, correct, or, when viewed in it's entirety, it actually might show itself as an approximation of a completely different theory which might have never been reached without first going through infinite iterations of the primary theory.
| quote: | | And if so, why is elementary physics accepted? |
Most explanations bring out more questions than they do answers. The thing is that as long as it doesn't repeat itself over and over again in the same way, it is not really falling into the infinite regress category. But I'm not really sure of what part of elementary physics are you talking about.
P.S. Weed out the n00bs, eh? :) |
|
|
| tathi |
| quote: | Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0
P.S. Weed out the n00bs, eh? :) |
you didn't use enough latin to scare away the ad nauseum noobs :P |
|
|
| trancaholic |
| quote: | Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0
Most explanations bring out more questions than they do answers. The thing is that as long as it doesn't repeat itself over and over again in the same way, it is not really falling into the infinite regress category. But I'm not really sure of what part of elementary physics are you talking about.
|
I was thinking about the reductionist view of the world (which by definition is always applied at the elementary level of physics). The fact that whenever we have explained the laws/invariants "governing" particles/matter on one level, we immediately try to explain these on an even lower level - necessarily inventing/discovering new laws while doing so. While I agree that these new laws are not the exact same as on the level above them, I don't think that "Who created God X_i" is necessarily the same as "Who created God X_{i+1}" either. At least, both chains of explanations will eventually have to end prematurely at a "it just is".
| quote: | Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0
P.S. Weed out the n00bs, eh? :) |
Actually, the thread was sparked by a genuine desire to understand the assumed problem of the infinite regress. But if it can scare of some rotten elements then I'll consider that a bonus.:) |
|
|
| Lover Boy |
| I don't think the concept of infinity is real, it is merely a human concept to try and grasp a number of outcomes in a situation that we could never understand in number form. |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| quote: | Originally posted by trancaholic
I was thinking about the reductionist view of the world (which by definition is always applied at the elementary level of physics). The fact that whenever we have explained the laws/invariants "governing" particles/matter on one level, we immediately try to explain these on an even lower level - necessarily inventing/discovering new laws while doing so. While I agree that these new laws are not the exact same as on the level above them, I don't think that "Who created God X_i" is necessarily the same as "Who created God X_{i+1}" either. At least, both chains of explanations will eventually have to end prematurely at a "it just is". |
Hm, well, I wouldn't really cathegorize physics as infinite regress because it is impossible to say at this time whether the chain of explanation is finite or not. But in the end I agree that it most likely has to end as "it just is". But I think physics go reiterating themselves mostly because of our limited perception, rather than because of logical necessity. If we had precise enough instruments to begin with, we could have defined subatomic interactions first, and then build our way up all the way to ordinary mechanics.
Ultimately, I don't think that physics can ever go beyond saying "it just is", but we still really haven't completely defined what it from that sentence actually means, and in that way physics still do have something to offer. Although when we arrive at that level, the question "why it is" may not even be necessarry. Sort of like asking why we are orbiting a yellow star. It could have been a red one, it could have been a green one, but it just happened to be a yellow one for no particular reason whatsoever. I suppose our minds are too set on everyday lives where every situation must have a cause and a reason behind it. But that does not necessarrily always have to be true. Our universe could just have appeared out of nothing as a statistical probability, and as such it was really not caused by anything.
| quote: | | Actually, the thread was sparked by a genuine desire to understand the assumed problem of the infinite regress. But if it can scare of some rotten elements then I'll consider that a bonus.:) |
Well, they're kinda missing out from this thread. Although the regular posters are kinda missing out too. Maybe it's just not an interesting topic for most people :) |
|
|
| NiteKiD |
 |
|
|
| trancaholic |
| quote: | Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0
Hm, well, I wouldn't really cathegorize physics as infinite regress because it is impossible to say at this time whether the chain of explanation is finite or not. But in the end I agree that it most likely has to end as "it just is". But I think physics go reiterating themselves mostly because of our limited perception, rather than because of logical necessity. If we had precise enough instruments to begin with, we could have defined subatomic interactions first, and then build our way up all the way to ordinary mechanics.
|
I agree with your comment, but still think that in principle reductionism and metaphysical explanations on "why" are essentially riddled with the same problems concerning arrival at an absolute truth. Clearly, going just a few steps further on the chain of regress within physics is often of practical value, but in principle we are no closer to an ontological answer to any "why"s we may have asked ourselves. (And, at this stage in time, the practical gains of getting "a deeper understanding" of the universe seems somewhat doubtful.) I don't think that's a problem for physics (as I'm not sure any "why"-questions even make sense), but I'm just puzzled as to why we are so quick to terminate any investigations into other philosophical "why"s as soon as these prove themselves to be regressive. I remember some point in Russels "History of Western Philosophy" were he shows that some philosophical attitude would result in an infinite regress, which immediately causes him to dismiss it. It seems premature to me.
| quote: | Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0
Well, they're kinda missing out from this thread. Although the regular posters are kinda missing out too. Maybe it's just not an interesting topic for most people :) |
Guess so.
| quote: | Originally posted by NiteKiD
|
Shoo! |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| quote: | Originally posted by trancaholic
I agree with your comment, but still think that in principle reductionism and metaphysical explanations on "why" are essentially riddled with the same problems concerning arrival at an absolute truth. Clearly, going just a few steps further on the chain of regress within physics is often of practical value, but in principle we are no closer to an ontological answer to any "why"s we may have asked ourselves. (And, at this stage in time, the practical gains of getting "a deeper understanding" of the universe seems somewhat doubtful.) I don't think that's a problem for physics (as I'm not sure any "why"-questions even make sense), but I'm just puzzled as to why we are so quick to terminate any investigations into other philosophical "why"s as soon as these prove themselves to be regressive. I remember some point in Russels "History of Western Philosophy" were he shows that some philosophical attitude would result in an infinite regress, which immediately causes him to dismiss it. It seems premature to me. |
The difference between physics and philosophy is that every step further down the theory of physics eventually offers us quite a lot of everyday technical gadgets, regardless of whether we reach any meaningful conclusion about the nature of the universe or not. Secondary, physics still have to prove whether they themselves are ending up in an infinite regress or not. If infinite regress is not classified as being equal in all (or at leats {all} - (the starting fixed number}) of iterations, then you could really classify most of things around you as being infinite regressions.
Yeah. Shoo, n00b! Shoo! |
|
|
|
|
