Chain of Causes – as Potential Infinity
Hello Rabbi,
1. I wanted to know why a chain of causes of explanation requires concrete infinity? Can’t the chain be shown as potential infinity? For example, there is a cyclical universe and it is larger than anything we can describe, etc.
2. Is the understanding that a concrete infinity cannot be regarded as existing because another explanation can always be added to it “at the end”, and is this understanding what illustrates to us why the existence of infinity is always only potential in our knowledge?
3. Even if, from the perspective of our knowledge, it is not possible to think and define as real the concept of concrete infinity (according to Section 2), who said that it does not exist in reality. After all, we can think of a reality without a starting point at all. [Maybe not understand what we are thinking, but still…]
4. Does the Rabbi accept the view of the obligation of the hearts or the RSG on how we got to this point if there was no starting point?
5. Why doesn’t the Rabbi mention in the second notebook the proof that a cyclical universe is not an explanation anyway (perhaps an explanation only in the sense of distancing his testimony) because of the second law of thermodynamics. That we arrive at the starting point of a universe with 0 time at the beginning. [Of course, all of this is assuming that we accept a concrete infinity].
Thanks in advance! And sorry for the trouble.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
3. If, from the point of view of our knowledge, the concept of concrete infinity cannot be thought of and defined as such (according to Section 2), then its use does not provide us with an explanation. When we seek an explanation, it is not enough that there is an explanation. It must be presented. It is like facing a mystery and not being troubled by it because perhaps there is an explanation that we do not understand. 4. This is an expression of the difficulty in the idea of concrete infinity. 5. A cyclical universe is not an explanation (see 1). I didn’t understand what was written here.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Is infinity as a power of a set potential infinity?
This is not a simple question. One of the criticisms of Cantor's theory of infinity was that his infinity is concrete. But an infinite chain of explanations is really concrete, and this is an evasion of explanation, not an explanation. Cantor does not assume anything positive about infinity, and therefore, in my opinion, it is not entirely clear that he is dealing with a concrete infinity.
Do you perhaps have a reference for the extension?
Not under my control. You have to search online.
Does the Rabbi perhaps have sources/materials on infinite regression?
No. I guess you can search online.
The rabbi actually once gave some links to materials on regression to someone who requested it (originally appears in the comments to the notebooks). I'll copy them here:
There is something called the homunculus fallacy, which is also based on infinite regression:
https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%9B%D7%A9%D7%9C_%D7%94%D7%95%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%A1
For details within the collection of fallacies in philosophy, see this book: https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/104/Homunculus-Fallacy
Here is one primary source: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Infinite_regress
And another: http://www.informationphilosopher.com/knowledge/infinite_regress.html
And another: http://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/6388/is-infinite-regress-of-causation-possible-is-infinite-regress-of-causation-necessary
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
