Q&A: Infinite Regression
Infinite Regression
Question
Hello Rabbi, sorry to bother you again about infinite regression. Maybe I could call if I still don't understand after this one last time.
a0In any case, as I understand it, the main problem bound up with the concept of infinity is mainly with an infinite number of causes, and not necessarily with an infinite mathematical "entity" certainly not one that is well defined.
- Ill divide the question into two parts. There cannot be an infinite chain of causes. There is a "failure" in the concept.
- There can be an infinite chain of causes. There is no "failure" in the concept. a0
On the side that there cannot be an infinite chain of causes:
After all, in the world there is nothing with eternal existence (based on entirely reasonable induction), so there has to be a cause that is a first cause, one that is its own cause. And likewise, according to the physico-theological argument, there must be a designer upon whom the planning of the world was not imposed.
But why should we assume that there cannot be infinitely many causes?!
Here the Rabbi wants to argue that the concept of infinity is problematic and not well defined. But the Rabbi himself explicitly wrote that there are cases where the concept of infinity is accepted:
"I should note that there are infinite regressions that can be acceptable. That is when one actually offers a description of all the links in the chain, even if only inductively. If, for example, we were to offer a description of this entire series by means of some formula," (second booklet, p. 8)
So in our case too, although I dont know exactly the formula for the Big Crunch, one can certainly show all the parts of the chain inductively.
Therefore I dont understand at all why the Rabbi rejects the infinite chain with respect to the world through the Big Crunch. [And in any case, afterward he brings Leibnizs argument, which Ill address immediately in the next section.]
That is the end of the part under the assumption that there is no infinite chain.
a0On the side that there can be an infinite chain of causes:
Here the Rabbi argues: maybe very nice, there is an infinite chain of causes, but in the end youve gained nothing. Because a chain of causes also needs an explanation just like anything else.
If I expand this a bit more (along the lines of Steinitz), one could say that if we assume that infinite chains of things explaining one another do not need an external first cause, then we could also posit infinitely many additional chains of things that do not exist, with no ability to offer an explanation distinguishing between the two. And therefore the question immediately jumps back at us: what is different about the "existing-eternal world chain" as opposed to a "non-existing-eternal alien world".
Therefore it seems proper that we should need to provide ourselves with an informative explanation with an external source of knowledge for the explanation of the chain. And we will call it God.
The small problem is that this God also requires a God, and so on forever after all, we did not rule out the possibility of an infinite chain of causes. And if we enlarge it further then even an eternal chain of gods 1 would require a new chain of gods 2, and so on and so on…. It seems to me that the Rabbi did not address this point at all.
Why shouldnt we require a creator for the creator, and so on? I agree that of course the way to end all the chains is by creating a new ontological concept of a necessary existent. But such an ontological concept is not something found in reality, certainly not in our empiricist approach (even in a rationalist one, it is debatable how far the ontological proof really works).
This divine process can also be carried out with the physico-theological proof.
Thanks in advance! a0 a0 a0 a0 a0 a0 a0 a0
Answer
Hello David.
As I understand it, there cannot be an infinite chain of causes. So this whole double "either way" move doesnt seem relevant to me.
I dont know what the Big Crunch is or what formula is involved there. In short, I dont see what else I have to add. I dont understand the difficulty.
If you want, you can of course call.
Discussion on Answer
So theres nothing here except an eternal universe. Its just sinusoidal, so what?
If I understood David correctly (Im mediating here as usual), hes saying that there is a formula that describes this eternal universe (ask Hawking for it, because I think he was responsible for the idea and its surely in his well-known book), and according to what he quotes from the booklet, infinity can exist if it has a description in a formula.
I assume the quote from the booklet was taken out of context, but I no longer have the energy for that.
A description by a formula that gives me universes appearing and disappearing according to a sine formula is of no help at all here. A series of explanations can help, if at all, only if there is some sort of development in it that converges on a full explanation different from its parts (and not turtles all the way down). But in such a case, that full explanation is nothing but the one turtle Im talking about.
In the meantime, we spoke on the phone last night, and it seems to me that everything has fallen into place.
For some reason David continued here:
https://mikyab.net/%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%AA/%D7%94%D7%A8%D7%90%D7%99%D7%94-%D7%94%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%A1%D7%9E%D7%9C%D7%92%D7%99%D7%AA/
The Big Crunch is a hypothetical process in which an eternal universe collapsed into itself until it became a singular point, from which the Big Bang began 15 billion years ago. Of course that eternal universe was also created in a Big Bang, and so on bangs and crunches all the way down.