99
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 12:
Line 12: + + + + + + + + +
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 23:00, March 8, 2007
, 23:00, March 8, 2007no edit summary
::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)
::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)
Please forgive me if I use inappropriate formatting for a discussion page, I'm new to wiki formatting, and I'm very open to guidance on how to use it properly.
I'd like to make a couple of comments here. Fact: All the matter, energy, space and time of ''this'' universe began at it's original Creation. As far as '''''this''''' universe goes, there is absolutely no naturalistic explanation for causation beyond the origin of this universe--simple logic reasoning. Any attempt to do so is by it's very nature inherently a '''super'''-natural (metaphysical) appeal. Therefore (I'm assuming it's acceptable here in discussions to make personal assertions, again correct me if I'm wrong...) let's have no further statements proclaiming 'infinite regressions' beyond the definite '''''finite''''' temporal bounds of this universe. It certainly '''is''' logically ''a priori'' impossible.
On the question of life: The origin of life (not any subsequent changes thereto, just the simple origin problem alone) poses an insurmountable problem to materialist origin of life researchers. There is not the slightest possibility of any stochastic mechanism alone providing satisfactory explanation for the incredible sequence of events required to form even the simplest of cells (particularly on earth amidst the extremely hostile conditions which are known to exist here at physical life's beginning) during the known-to-be finite timespan (and everyother-span) of this universe.
On fallacies: The preeminent fallacy committed by typical science researchers today is the idea of methodological-naturalism, I.E., You can make no appeal to any causation beyond the boundaries of observable nature. That is implicitly a biased point-of-view, and is a fundamentally flawed agenda if the actual goal is the pursuit of truth no matter where it leads--ostensibly the sovereign goal of science research itself (I know, I know...I'm probably just a naive idealist :^) All other current reasoning errors in science and philosophy research stem from this basic issue.
--[[User:Knowthetruth|Knowthetruth]] 18:00, 8 March 2007 (EST)