Q&A: More Regarding Infinity
More Regarding Infinity
Question
Hi Rabbi, do you accept the claim that an infinite regress is impossible because in order for it to begin to “operate,” it must have a starting point? (Like an infinite row of falling dominoes, which must have a first piece that knocks down the others.) a0
In addition, can one say that ultimately the discussion boils down to one question: does there need to be a reason for there being existence at all? If a reason is needed, then a regress really would not answer that question, because we would still ask why there is a chain of causes at all. a0
Thank you very much for your availability and responsiveness, I appreciate it.
Answer
For an explanation to count as an explanation, it must be presented in full. Otherwise, it is like saying, “I have an explanation,” without presenting it. There is no way to present a complete explanation consisting of an infinite regress.
I didn’t understand the second question.
Discussion on Answer
In order for you to say that you explained something, you need to show a structure that starts with some assumptions and proceeds to the claim you want to explain. What is unclear about that?
Sorry, I wasn’t clear enough. My first question is trying to understand the logical problem with regressions, not whether they constitute an explanation. In other words, is a backward infinite regress logically impossible because there is nothing that would cause the chain of causes to start operating, just as a row of falling dominoes must have a first piece?