>premise 1: all causes must have a cause
>QED: therefore no cause can be uncaused
>premise 1: all causes must have a cause
>premise 2: infinite regress is impossible
>there must be an uncaused cause
>this contradicts premise 1, therefore one of the premises must be wrong
How can someone say all causes must have a cause proves an uncaused cause. If there is an uncaused cause, then at least one cause had no cause, and therefore the premise used to prove the conclusion is false, and therefore the conclusion can not be said to be proven true.
Either infinite regress is true, even if you don't like it. There's no proof that infinite regress is false except that it is distasteful because it holds not concrete explanatory power. Or the premise that call causes must have a cause is false, nor is it proven that one and only one cause is uncaused.
1: all *natural* causes must have a cause
You cant post this kind of thing bro
the enforcers are gonna find you and neutralise you
look just stop posting this
How is that axiom any less silly that infinite regress is impossible? You are saying to pick between a "supernatural cause" or infinite regress on the basis of faith, and deciding it must be a supernatural cause because you don't like the implications of infinite regress.
>you don't like the implications of infinite regress.
What are the implications?
Infinite regress is not favored because it's an explanation of causality where causality is not actually explained. Try to find an example in the real world where infinite regress is actually used as a valid explanation.
>What are the implications?
As pointed out before, and you seem to agree, that nothing can be concretely explained.
>Infinite regress is not favored because it's an explanation of causality where causality is not actually explained.
Infinite regress doesn't seek to explain causality though. You just favor a supernatural cause that violates causality to explain causality, rather than accept the implication that causality may not be so simple to comprehend.
>Try to find an example in the real world where infinite regress is actually used as a valid explanation.
You don't have to because we use axiomatic logic. We don't use quantum physics to explain how cars work. We don't even do finite regress for most reasoning.
>that nothing can be concretely explained
But it can.
>Infinite regress doesn't seek to explain causality though.
We seek to explain causality. And an infinite regress is an invalid solution, hence unpreferred.
>rather than accept the implication that causality may not be so simple to comprehend.
False dichotomy. I'll gladly accept this and still won't pretend that infinite regress is a valid answer.
>We don't use quantum physics to explain how cars work.
We use QP for some things. About infinite regress much less can be said.
>But it can.
Explain the uncaused cause, in detail, because you have a regress to something that is fundamentally supernatural. Regress to it's magic I ain't gotta explain shit isn't really any better than infinite regress.
>We seek to explain causality. And an infinite regress is an invalid solution, hence unpreferred.
Except you can't explain causality without a supernatural uncaused cause, without proof. This is only based on preferring to have an explanation without proof than no explanation.
>False dichotomy. I'll gladly accept this and still won't pretend that infinite regress is a valid answer.
Then there's no proof of a supernatural uncaused cause because it is supposedly a proof by contradiction that ignores its own contradiction. For example, you could have a cyclical regress, that exists because the cycle is a stable model. There doesn't need to be an ultimate cause, only that any one part of the cycle implies all other parts of the cycle.
>We use QP for some things. About infinite regress much less can be said.
We don't use string theory for anything though. Infinite regress isn't an explanation, it's a conclusion. Your argument is that you prefer an explanation that is without proof than having no explanation because you don't like not having an explanation.
I also want to add that to the common layperson, it doesn't really matter if they believe in quantum mechanics, string theory, atomic theory, monads, continuous matter, water as a first principle, etc. Reasonable conclusions can be drawn from observations that don't rely on a correct understanding of the fundamental workings of the universe. Infinite regress doesn't mean you can't know anything, it just means you can't know some things, things that are usually academic and unimportant to laypeople.
Infinite regress is paradoxical, is straight up doesn't make sense outside mathematical abstraction.
Not really, we know that a "present" exist, everything else is just pseudo-scientific, so there had to have enough time passed to reach the current present. With infinite regress there need to be unlimited time have passed to reach "now" or any point in time for that matter which is impossible.
Einstein and schrodinger disagree. Special relativity proves that there is no such thing as a universal present. Not only did they believe in eternalism (block universe), but also open individualism.
There doesn't need to be a universal present for my point though, just the fact that a present exists at all and that time moves farward aka physical processes/movement happens.
Define the present then
The current position and momentum/energy of all physical objects.
circular definition. Again, there is no universal present, this is fact. Eternalism makes more sense. Time is just an illusion. Time has a direction to us only because entropy is always increasing, and remembering something increases entropy.
How is it circular? I can just remove "current" and say that "future" and "past" doesn't exist.
>circular definition. Again, there is no universal present, this is fact
My point doesn't require an universal present, just a single atom having a present is proof enough that infinite regress is paradoxical.
>Eternalism makes more sense.
Mot really, it requires infinite things to have happened, which makes no sense without a starting point.
>Time is just an illusion.
Ehh, depends what you mean with "time"
>Time has a direction because entropy is always increasing
Entropy is a process, so requires time progression to happen at all. Without time everything would be static.
read the literature
Post it, then
Seems like you're mixing philosophy with physics, dude
>supernatural shit makes sense
That's the entire point, the supernatural isn't bound by physical logic.
>supernatural shit doesn't make sense
Yeah, that's the point.
Infinite regress is supernatural
There’s no problem with infinite regress. If infinity is possible, then you can have infinite space and time. The key here is to not think about time as something that flows, but just another dimension. So the universe could be one huge “video” with no starting point. The data is all there, and the data at t = x is related to the data at t = x + 1, and there is no contradiction here.
But we can take a step back and ask what a cause really is. Maybe there are no causes at all, and this universe was just selected for out of a multiverse of multiverses, so that we ascribe causality to it. Taking existence as a whole, everything simply exists. It doesn’t make sense to say that some things caused others. You’re just observing patterns. Obviously you cannot make those same observations about everything that exists as a whole
Universes are just stable collections of markov states. All stable markov chains exist, albeit independently. The set of valid markov chains is the set of extant universes. We happen to live in a fairly complex markov chain.
More or less. As life evolved from matter, so do universes evolve from randomness. The question is, how do you exclude the possibility of a God in a multiverse? There could be a multiverse in which there truly exists an omnipotent, omniscient God
Uncaused cause was always the less sensical explanation. Is something has no cause it doesn't happen, doesn't exist by definition.
>How can someone say all causes must have a cause proves an uncaused cause.
No one who says that there is an uncaused cause believes that all causes must have a cause.