Turtles all the way down

I made a slight correction in the bot and sent the rabbi's prompt again:

Brief clarification: The answers are given by a model that uses the sources of Rabbi Michael Avraham and attempts to recreate what he would have answered. Therefore, the answers do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the Rabbi. In the event that a halachic answer is actually needed, one should contact a halachic arbiter.

In short: infinite regression (a chain of explanations/reasons that never stops) is not an acceptable explanation, because it does not provide what we require from an act of explanation. In Rabbi Michael Avraham this is formulated in several complementary reasons:

1. The explanation never arrives.
An explanation that says "X because Y, and Y because Z, and Z because ..." without a stopping point - does not actually explain anything about X. At each link we are still left with the same question "And why is this?", and therefore it is a postponement of the question and not an answer. Therefore, in philosophy, an infinite chain is seen as a "failed explanation pattern", and the chain must stop somewhere at a link that does not require a prior explanation (primary/unconditioned).

2. The need for a positive description (rather than a general statement about "infinity")
To explain a phenomenon, one must describe its causes. A general statement that there are an infinite number of vertebrae is not a positive description of each of them; and if infinity is only potential (as an intuitionistic deduction), it is not possible to present the entire explanation to the listener. In any case, talking about an infinite chain of explanations is meaningless, and certainly not acceptable. The Rabbi also brings here the examples of the homunculus and the turtles to illustrate that infinite regression explains nothing.

3. The principle of sufficient taste – the whole still requires taste
Even if each link has a local meaning, the whole complex still asks, "Why is there this whole chain at all?" According to the principle of sufficient meaning, an infinite number of conditional links is not enough; an element that is independent, that does not entail regression again, is required. The rabbi explains that the discussion can be formulated both along the axis of causality and along the axis of meaning, and in both cases infinite regression fails.

4. Dealing with Kant
Kant argued that we have no justification for applying the prohibition of regression beyond the world of experience. Rabbi Avraham replies that the argument against regression is not empirical but stems from the concept of explanation itself: an explanation that does not stop is not an explanation. Therefore, the Kantian conclusion does not harm reasoning.

In the Rabbi's terms: a true explanation must end with something that is no longer a link, but an anchor point that does not require prior explanation – thus avoiding an endless slide that explains nothing.

Do you want me to elaborate on the difference between potential infinity and actual infinity, or on the connection between this and the classical cosmological view?

Sources used in practice:
• Rabbi Michael Avraham, the first presenter, second talk: "The Cosmological View", section C: "What's wrong with infinite regression?", and section D/Discussion on potential infinity.
• There, a discussion of the principle of sufficient reason and the transition from causal relations to causal relations.
• "Faith and Science – Part 1", mikyab.net website (on the principle of sufficient reason).
• Ibid., reference to Kant's attainment.

To obtain a more in-depth and accurate picture, it is recommended to review the sources cited and search the rabbi's website: mikyab.net. On the website, you can also find the way to purchase the rabbi's books.

In addition, I also sent him the question of the asker:

peace!
The answers are given by a model that uses the sources of Rabbi Michael Avraham and attempts to recreate what he would have answered. Therefore, the answers do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the Rabbi. In the event that a halachic answer is actually needed, one should contact a halachic arbiter.

Great. Rabbi Michael Avraham does directly deal with the "turtles all the way down" alternative (infinite regression) and shows why it is not an explanatory alternative.

### Where is this at the rabbi's?

1. **The First Book of the Law – Chapter "The Cosmological View"**

* Opening the discussion with infinite regression and why "turtles all the way" is not an explanation: "Regression (=retreat) of explanation cannot be infinite... the chain must stop somewhere."
* The classic story of "the turtles" and the clarification that the "fool" is actually the one who suggests an infinite number of factors — not the one who asks where it stops; the section is explicitly presented under the heading "Turtles all the way to the bottom."
* The explicit title and discussion: "What's wrong with infinite regression?" — posing the question and discussing it in principle (p. around 154).
* The course of the argument: Combining the principle of causality/sufficient reason with the negation of infinite regression yields an obligation to stop at a first cause that is independent of its others; this must be outside of experience, and therefore the same empirical causality of the events familiar to us ("between cause and cause") does not apply to it.
* Further emphasis that the argument is not "Special Fielding": We accept that the things we know need a cause; it is precisely the rejection of the claim that everything has a cause that leads to the recognition of an unconditional first cause.

2. **The article "Faith and Science – Part 3" (on the website)**
The rabbi poses the choice: an atheist is forced to choose between infinite regression as a "sufficient" reason and the claim that not everything has a cause; and he explicitly adds that infinite regression is not a rational reason.

3. **On the blog** (supplemental discussions)
In the columns dealing with the physico-theological argument, he repeatedly remarks that cosmological versions that infect more and more "universes" are actually variations of "turtles all the way" — that is, an evasion of explanation, not a competing explanation.

### Chapter Headings in the Argument Against Infinite Regression (in Brief)

* Infinite factors ≠ explanation: An infinite chain leaves every item you want to explain without a finite explanans — and so there is no explanation here but an infinite postponement of the question. This is a regression fallacy, not an answer.
* Stopping at the first cause: Combining the principle of causality (or sufficient reason) with the negation of infinite regression results in a first cause that does not require a prior cause, and is therefore not part of the chain of experimental events. This is a different category ("cause"/"object") and not the same "cause" of events.
* Refuting "more and more worlds" scenarios: Adding links to the chain does not advance one meter toward an explanation — that is exactly "turtles all the way."

#### Sources used in practice

* The first finding: Faith, religious commitment and rational thinking — chapter "The Cosmological View", sections "Turtles All the Way Down" and "What's Wrong with Infinite Regression?", as well as "Between Cause and Effect: Events and Objects" (approx. pp. 152–172).
* "Faith and Science – Part 3", on the website mikyab.net (discussion on the principle of sufficient reason and infinite regression)
* A blog column dealing with "Turtles All the Way" in the context of the physico-theological view.

To obtain a more in-depth and accurate picture, it is recommended to review the sources cited and search the rabbi's website: mikyab.net. On the website, you can also find the way to purchase the rabbi's books.

Would you like me to direct you to specific pages according to the edition you have, or to include additional quotes?