/philosophy/ -How does this refute infinite regress?

Name
Email
Subject	REC STOP
Comment *
File	Select/drop/paste files here
Password	(Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
Archive	Archive [500 char limit]
Flag*	open flag menu
* = required field	[▶Show post options & limits] Confused? See the FAQ.

Embed	(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options	Do not bump (you can also write sage in the email field)
Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webp,webm, mp4, mov, pdf Max filesize is16 MB. Max image dimensions are15000 x15000. You may upload5 per post.

File: a1c95dae314b3f0⋯.gif (10.34 KB,72x72,1:1,tnstellate.gif)

How does this refute infinite regress? Anonymous 05/06/19 (Mon) 05:50:18 9f3cc7 No.7276

Proclus' Elements of Theology:

Proposition 11. All that exists proceeds from a single first cause.

For otherwise all things are uncaused; or else the sum of existence is limited, and there is a circuit of causation within the sum; or else there will be regress to infinity, cause lying behind cause, so that the positing of prior causes will never cease. But if all things were uncaused, there would be no sequence of primary and secondary, perfecting and perfected, regulative and regulated, generative and generated, active and passive, and all things would be unknowable. For the task of science is the recognition of causes, and only when we recognize the causes of things do we say that we know them.

And if causes transmit themselves in a circuit, the same things will at once prior and consequent; that is, since every productive causes is superior to its product (prop. 7), each will be at once more efficient than the rest and less efficient. (It is indifferent wether we make the connexion of cause and effect and derive the one from the other through a greater or a less number of intermediate causes; for the cause of all these intermediaries will be superior to all of them, and the greater their number, the greater the efficency of that cause.)

And if the accumulation of causes may be continued to infinity, cause behind cause for ever, thus again all things will be unknowable. For nothing infinite can be apprehended; and the causes being unknown, there can be knowledge of their consequents. Since, then, things cannot be uncaused, and cause is not convertible with effect, and infinite regress is excluded, it remains that there is a first cause of all existing things, whence they severally proceed as branches from a root, some near to it and others more remote, For that there is not more than once such first principle has already been esablished, inasmuch as the subsistence of any manifold is posterior to the One (prop.5).

____________________________

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

Anonymous 05/06/19 (Mon) 06:32:48 06c9d1 No.7280

typo:

>there can be knowledge of their consequents.

there can be no knowledge of their consequents.*

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

Anonymous 05/06/19 (Mon) 07:06:46 3e5cbc No.7281

typos:

>For that there is not more than once such first principle has already been esablished, inasmuch as the subsistence of any manifold is posterior to the One (prop.5).

For that there is not more than one such first principle has already been esablished, inasmuch as the subsistence of any manifold is posterior to the One (prop.5).

>And if causes transmit themselves in a circuit, the same things will at once prior and consequent;

And if causes transmit themselves in a circuit, the same things will be at once prior and consequent;

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

Anonymous 05/06/19 (Mon) 07:07:19 3e5cbc No.7282

mods should probably delete this thread

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

Anonymous 05/07/19 (Tue) 16:27:09 86e084 No.7283

I'm not certain what I say is correct(I haven't read Proclus), but it might be of some help to you.

Proclus seems to be saying either all things are uncaused, there is a circular chain of causation, or there is an infinite chain backwards. He rejects the first by pointing out causes do exist, and also notes it would make scientific knowledge impossible(and we certainly do have scientific knowledge, so this can't be the case).

He rejects the second, by pointing out what produces is superior to what is produced, but if there were a circle of causes, then what produces would be both more and less than what it produces, and what is produces would be both more and less than what it is produced by. This cannot be, so we must reject a circle of causes as well.

He rejects the third by pointing out it also makes knowledge impossible. It might be argued here that it would only make certain knowledge impossible. For example, if we have a chain of causes A->B->C->D->E, then we might say "We know the causes of E, D, therefore we know E, even though we do not know D because C is unknowable". Proclus seems to reject such an argument. He seems to be saying "You say you know E because you know the cause D, but I ask you for anything about that cause, and you must answer, if you have knowledge, about the causes of D, C. At least, C cannot be excluded from the answer. But you say you cannot know C, and if you cannot know C, how can you know D, when D depends on C for explanation? You cannot."

It would be like me saying "I know that the power button on my phone turns it on and off" without knowing anything about electricity or circuitry or phone design etc. I do not know that the power button is what turns it on unless I know the cause of its turning on, and while that cause is the power button, if I say I know nothing of the power button, I certainly cannot say I know it is responsible for turning my phone on.

Now that Proclus has rejected all these alternatives, he can reaffirm what he has earlier built the basis for: That all things proceed from a single first cause.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

Anonymous 05/20/19 (Mon) 18:59:14 a42b3b No.7313

It occurs to me that the question of what caused the infinite regress of causes is on par with argument who made God, at first glance. But is seems to me to still be more plausible that an omnipotent being could survive this sort of boot strap fallacy. The refutation that you botched in copy-paste and that I don't feel like mentally piecing back together, is probably founded in an infinite regress of causes being equivalent to reality creating itself ad infinitum. No matter how infinite the list of causes, that just isn't possible.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.