303
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 7:
Line 7: − + + +
Debate:Is infinite regression ever valid as a form of reasoning, or acceptable as a way the universe works, or came to be? (view source)
Revision as of 17:30, March 8, 2007
, 17:30, March 8, 2007no edit summary
Postscript: This is a special-case type of page. The "article," as such, ''is'' discussion. That's the nature of a debate topic.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 23:41, 7 March 2007 (EST)
Postscript: This is a special-case type of page. The "article," as such, ''is'' discussion. That's the nature of a debate topic.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 23:41, 7 March 2007 (EST)
'''Yes'''. There is no ''a priori'' reason to rule out infinite regression in all circumstances. It may seem a superficially unsatisfying explaination to state "it's turtles all the way down", but that doesn't mean that infinite regression cannot exist. Of course, if there is a finite limit to the problem at hand, such as the age of the universe in the panspermia problem, then infinite regression cannot work. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 11:45, 8 March 2007 (EST)
'''Comment'''. There is no ''a priori'' reason to rule out infinite regression in all circumstances. It may seem a superficially unsatisfying explaination to state "it's turtles all the way down", but that doesn't mean that infinite regression cannot exist. Of course, if there is a finite limit to the problem at hand, such as the age of the universe in the panspermia problem, then infinite regression cannot work. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 11:45, 8 March 2007 (EST)
:'''Counter'''. That is precisely the problem. The age of the universe ''is'' limited. No reputable [[Astronomy|astronomer]] accepts a steady-state universe anymore. The most that anyone will accept is a cyclic universe--but [[Albert Einstein]] held that a cyclic universe is impossible, because our universe doesn't have enough mass to stop expansion and bring everything back into a clump again. Einstein was slow to realize that, of course, but in the end he yielded to the demands of logic, his own wonderfully self-consistent theory, and observations that he could not controvert.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 12:23, 8 March 2007 (EST)
:'''Counter'''. That is precisely the problem. The age of the universe ''is'' limited. No reputable [[Astronomy|astronomer]] accepts a steady-state universe anymore. The most that anyone will accept is a cyclic universe--but [[Albert Einstein]] held that a cyclic universe is impossible, because our universe doesn't have enough mass to stop expansion and bring everything back into a clump again. Einstein was slow to realize that, of course, but in the end he yielded to the demands of logic, his own wonderfully self-consistent theory, and observations that he could not controvert.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 12:23, 8 March 2007 (EST)
::Firstly, I am not arguing for a "big crush" model. I defer to the opinions of my phycist collegues who assert that a massively old and thus dilute universe could provide the conditions for new "big bangs" or useful material. If it is possible, then there is no ''a priori'' reasons to dismiss infite regression out of hand. Furthermore infinite regression relates to more than temporal regression. You will be familure with cells being explained in terms of chemicals, chemicals in terms of atoms, and so on until we reach quantum theory, or more controversially string theory. There is no ''a priori'' reason to simply assume than this line of explaination stops there, or even ever stops, although I think it probable that it does eventually stop. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:30, 8 March 2007 (EST)