Siteadmin, Check users, Administrators
12,071
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 8:
Line 8: + +
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 17:23, March 8, 2007
, 17:23, March 8, 2007no edit summary
'''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)
'''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)
:'''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)