Q&A: Infinite Regression
Infinite Regression
Question
Hello,
I wanted to ask the Rabbi:
I read the second booklet, and I can understand why an infinite regression is an escape from explanation, or in other words, explaining every answer with “that’s just how it is”…
But I don’t understand why that means it isn’t correct.
After all, it does contain an explanation that the situation always existed. Why is that not logical?
I know only one explanation that shows this cannot be realized in reality:
because if before every event there must come infinitely many causes, then no event will ever occur. For example, if you are standing in line to enter a certain door. If in front of you in line there stands a limited number of people, and every so often someone enters through the door, then after a certain amount of time your turn will come.
But if there are infinitely many people ahead of you in line, then your turn will never come. And not only your turn—even the turn of the person in front of you will never come, and so on. It follows that no person could ever pass through the door. And by analogy—no event could ever occur. But in practice events do in fact occur, and this shows that there is a first cause from which everything begins.
That is the only explanation I know, but I saw in your book that modern mathematics, following Cantor and others, proved that this explanation is nonsense.
Does the Rabbi perhaps have any illuminating comments to shed light on and add regarding this topic? Because as I understand it, the “fallacy of regression” is perhaps the most important foundation in the proofs of faith / belief.
Answer
Hello.
I’m not able to understand the question. If in your view too this is an evasion of explanation, then how can you see in it an explanation?
The question you raised about needing an infinite amount of time to reach the present state is incorrect, since on the time axis there can be a chain of infinitely many links that can be traversed in a finite time (the paradox of Achilles and the tortoise). This has nothing to do with Cantor in any way.
Discussion on Answer
Well, I’m not worthy enough for this (“an evasion of explanation is an explanation”???).
To say “just so” is not an explanation. To say that it always existed is not an explanation, both because today we know about the Big Bang and because of the principle of sufficient reason (I explained all this in the booklet). Beyond that, infinite regression does not mean that this is how it always was, but rather proposes an infinite chain of explanations.
An explanation that rests on the unknown is preferable because the argument shows that there must be such an unknown. Therefore the fact that it is something unknown is not a drawback of the explanation (especially when we are looking for explanations of the known, and therefore it is no surprise that they cannot be given in terms of the known).
A convergent chain has no beginning. Only the time axis on which it takes place is finite. You are confusing the amount of time it takes for it to occur with its essential convergence.
It doesn’t have to be. In my opinion he is mistaken on the logical level. Logically, something infinite that is not a necessary existent is possible. But philosophically one could argue that if something is infinite then it is a necessary existent (or at least that its cause / rationale is a necessary existent, according to the principle of sufficient reason).
The Big Crunch claims that the universe always existed.
And clearly there is a certain measure of explanation in that.
After all, if we have no reason whatsoever to assume there is a God, then we will prefer to assume that the universe always existed rather than introduce an unknown factor into the picture.
I didn’t understand what you wanted to argue regarding a convergent chain.
P.S. I think the main difficulty with infinity is specifically in a chain of causes, not necessarily in the concept.
True, it’s an evasion of explanation, but it is itself still an explanation.
That is, it’s not an evasion without offering an alternative answer. Rather, it really does give and provide an alternative answer, but in the word “just so” — the thing always existed.
I agree that, yes, to a certain extent this is a narrow explanation, even a very narrow one.
But why is an explanation that builds into itself a claim resting on the “unknown” preferable?
That is, how do we know that the world really did not always exist?
Regarding the paradox of Achilles and the tortoise—I don’t understand why you give an example of a convergent infinite series.
The causes of the universe are not a convergent infinite series (and if they were, then in any case it would have a starting point), but an infinite series that does not converge (diverges?). Does the Rabbi think that the argument of Duties of the Heart / Saadia Gaon / “the line that never arrives” is in fact valid regarding the universe?
By the way, I have another question. I saw in The Gate of Unity that anything that can be destroyed is not a necessary existent, and therefore is not infinite. Does the Rabbi perhaps know why something infinite must also be a necessary existent? (The reverse is easy to understand)