TPF : Infinite Regress vs First Cause

[Gnomon]

His response is quite relevant to your claim that infinite regress is not addressed in mathematics. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Tones, apparently you didn't read the OP, and responded only to some abbreviated second & third replies to assertions about Pi & circles & infinity. I would have to be an idiot to make the "claim" you pin on me above. Perhaps that prejudicial misunderstanding is why some posters are treating ↪invicta
as an idiot, or worse a woo-monger. I am not arguing with your mathematical acumen, just with your mis-interpretation of what is being said.

What I actually said was that his OP was not a scientific or mathematical assertion, but a philosophical "theory" for discussion. He was disagreeing with Aristotle's use of "infinite regression" as a reason for proposing a First Cause. Then, he offered an alternative metaphor of a snake eating its tail, raising the issue of whether a circle is an example of infinite regress, due to its association with the irrational never-ending number PI. He even asked if "anyone wanna trash this theory?". Would anyone in his right mind ask that of a mathematical fact?

I actually disagreed with his use of the Ouroboros metaphor. But when others began to make an issue of the PI/infinity concept, I simply pointed out that it was used in a metaphorical context, not as mathematical fact. So, get off his back. If you want to get technical, PI is indeed an infinite series of numbers*1, and a circle -- no beginning or end -- is sometimes used symbolically as a metaphor for infinity*2. Unfortunately, he continues to argue with Banno about interminable terms that have no bearing on the original post -- just digging himself deeper into the shallow end of philosophical debate.


*1. The approximate value of pi is calculated to be 3.14159265…. and is an infinite decimal number. Therefore, it can be concluded from the above explanation that pi is an irrational number.
https://unacademy.com/content/question- ... al-number/

*2. Why is infinity not represented by a circle?
Why is the infinity symbol not a circle? Because it was already being used by the number zero, the letter 'O,' the composition operation for functions, and the degree symbol, among other things.
https://www.quora.com/Why-is-the-infini ... e-a-circle

Pi, spiral, symbol, math, infinity, irrational number :
golden-number-pi-hundred-digits-of-the-constant-forming-an-orange-HTA2H9.jpg

↪invicta

↪Banno

↪jgill

[Gnomon]

That is nothing less than bizarre for you to say.
You wrote:
"Infinite Regress" and "First Cause" are philosophical concepts that are not addressed by Mathematics — Gnomon — TonesInDeepFreeze

I owe you an apology. I assumed the subject of the sentence was obvious. But, in retrospect, apparently not. Mea culpa.

Therefore, to avoid contributing to the ongoing confusion, I should have emphasized that it's the "philosophical concepts" that are not addressed by mathematics. "Infinity" is a legitimate mathematical topic, but "Infinite Regression" is an ancient philosophical conundrum. Hence, to get into mathematical technicalities is irrelevant to questions about a world-creating act of Causation. An Uncaused Cause or Prime Mover is a Platonic/Aristotelian notion of Metaphysics, not Physics, nor Math. Does that make sense to you? Or do you think philosophical questions can be solved mathematically?

In the OP, A self-drawn circle is the theory to be "trashed", not the definition of Infinity. Since the topic is hypothetical/metaphysical (an idea, not an object), Plato used creation myths, not math, to illustrate his concept of a First Cause. Likewise, Invicta was using symbols & metaphors to make his point. Unfortunately, by introducing PI into the discussion, he opened himself to mathematical criticism. But I still maintain that the discussion veered off-topic into irrelevant technicalities. Apparently, in the face of such sniping, Invicta bailed on his own thread.


For those interested in the actual topic of this thread :

From OP : "But hang on a second, if it was self caused then there can’t be an infinite regression of causes. Anyone wanna trash this theory?"
That's a big "IF", but IMHO he's correct that a self-existing First Cause*1, would be the initiator/creator of causation in our contingent world*2. Hence, by positing a First Cause, the Greeks were avoiding the absurdity of infinite regression*3 . If we can all agree with that interpretation, maybe Invicta will get back in the game.

*1. first cause, sustaining cause, unmoved mover, necessary being :
On the one hand, the argument arises from human curiosity as to why there is something rather than nothing or than something else. It invokes a concern for some full, complete, ultimate, or best explanation of what exists contingently. On the other hand, it raises intrinsically important philosophical questions about contingency and necessity, causation and explanation, part/whole relationships (mereology), possible worlds, infinity, sets, the nature of time, and the nature and origin of the universe.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosm ... -argument/
Note -- Do the general questions listed above have mathematical solutions?

*2. First Cause : Though they often disagreed, one principle of philosophy on which Plato and Aristotle agreed was that existence and the universe required a First Cause or Prime Mover - a god of some kind. Their argument was basically as follows. Every finite and dependent being has a cause.
Note -- Therefore the regression of finite causation ends at the beginning.

*3. Infinite Regress Arguments attempt to refute a position by showing that the position leads to an absurd infinite sequence. This argument strategy is used in collaborative reasoning in everyday life, in science and in philosophy.
https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/humanities ... gress.aspx
Note -- Maybe Invicta will add to his theory an explanation for why Infinite Regress of Causation is deemed Absurd by some thinkers, even though that's exactly what the Multiverse theory postulates.

↪invicta

↪jgill

[Gnomon]

Yes, the subject is:
"Infinite Regress" and "First Cause"
The predicate is:
are philosophical concepts that are not addressed by Mathematics
That is a claim that "Infinite Regress and "First Cause" are (1) philosophical concepts and (2) they are not addressed by mathematics. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Again, that is not my claim. It's your erroneous interpretation, but not my intention. "Infinite Regress" and "First Cause" are examples of the subject content, acted upon by the predicate. Instead, it is "philosophical concepts" that the predicate modifies with "not addressed". And it's the "Infinite Regression"*1 argument, not the definition of "Infinity", that is in question.

However, I admitted above that the sentence construction could be misconstrued --- by someone with a pre-conception. Especially after the impassioned mathematical side-track had been going on for a while. That's why I added the bold, to indicate the subject of my sentence.

I suspect that we are actually in agreement about the math of PI & Infinity, but perhaps not about the philosophical concept of a pre-big-bang First Cause. Unfortunately, ↪invicta seems to be insisting on a colloquial usage of "infinity", while you are insisting on technical definitions. Therefore, on the side issue of Number Theory, the post is at an impasse. But the philosophical notion of a causal-regression-halting First Cause (or Prime Mover) has not been addressed & resolved in this thread, so is still an open question.

Consequently, the Pre-Big-Bang state of being (Ontology) remains a contentious issue among philosophers. Yet I maintain that it is a valid enigma, that serious scientists have attempted to resolve, not with math, but with the endless regression of a god-like eternal Multiverse*2 (Many Worlds), without beginning or end.


*1. Infinite Regress Arguments :
An infinite regress is a series of appropriately related elements with a first member but no last member, where each element leads to or generates the next in some sense.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/infinite-regress/
Note -- The relationship between elements is Causation, not mathematical value. The "first" member is the element in question.

*2. Why the Multiverse is a “God-of-the-gaps” theory :
"God’s existence is not provable by observations. The Multiverse is not provable by observations. God explains the Universe. The Multiverse explains the Universe. The Multiverse, then, is a lot like God. Weird, right?" ___by astrophysicist Marcelo Gleiser
https://bigthink.com/13-8/multiverse-religion/
Note -- You don't have to "waste time" by clicking on the link. I included a summation in the quote.

↪jgill

[Gnomon]

You did it again: You bolded in my quote without indicating that the bolding was not original. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Yes. I emphasized the subject of the sentence, to show where you missed the point of the original statement. Apparently, that didn't have the desired effect. But I'll continue to do it again, if you continue to misinterpret my meaning. In the words of Paul McCartney, "let it be".

[Gnomon]

↪TonesInDeepFreeze
Sometimes all you can do is laugh and walk away. — Aristotle — Banno

Amen!

I don't know what set Tones off on his "Gnomon said" rant. Gnomon didn't say or mean whatever knocked the chip off his shoulder. Maybe the chip fell off by itself. I certainly had no intention to insult him, or to debate the technicalities of higher math with him. But he seems to be determined to make it all about the numbers.

I was about to mention that he's gnawing on an imaginary bone, with no nutritional value. But such a light-hearted tongue-in-cheek remark might just throw more fuel on the "he said --- she said" flame. So, instead, since this thread long ago veered off-topic, I'll take your advice to just laugh quietly and walk away. Thanks for the Aristotle??? quote.

PS___Since he's bursting at the seems, I'll let Tones have the last word : fill-in the blank [ . . . . . . . ]

[Gnomon]

As far as I see it neither a first cause nor infinite causes solve the problem of infinite causality, but visual aids help to a certain extent, in the end were left with a circle … asking where the circle came from is a valid question and it’s representation of circular logic in a way answers it. — invicta

↪invicta, I can't apologize on behalf of the TPF forum. But personally, I'm sorry you got mired in the quicksand of the Literal Mind; of which there are several pits on this "meeting place of ideas". Personally, I saw some merit in your hypothetical, metaphorical, and symbolic approach to a "perennial" philosophical conundrum : "how did the observed chain of causation get started?". Or, in other words, "why is there something instead of nothing"?

Unlike Plato & Aristotle, some pseudo-philosopher posters are limited in their thinking to finite physical Reality : no place for metaphysical Ideality. Consequently, intimations of anything outside the physical/material system of Cause & Effect amounts to blasphemy against their personal belief system (their creed). As you've seen, they sometimes react with "furious anger and righteous indignation". (note -- don't look for links to the quotes, just take them literally, at face value)

Space-time Causation is obviously not a physical object in the real world. It is instead, an abstract idea conceived in the mind of observers to explain why one event is followed by another as-if by a transfer of momentum (conserved quantity of energy). But the energy itself is an idea (qualia), not a tangible substance (quanta) that could be poured into a bottle. Aristotle defined "Energy" (ergon) as a mysterious unseen "power" to act on objects. Modern physicists may have different terminology, but Causation is still an ideational attribution, not a tangible thing bounded by space-time.

The conventional symbol*1 for Infinity*2 is not a literal/physical example of a thing-without-beginning-or-end. Instead, it's a circle folded-over into a laid-over symbol of the number eight*3. Before that convention was adopted, some thinkers used the circle itself to represent something without beginning or end. Your Ouroboros image is another version of the same concept. Likewise, in modern times, we sometimes use a Mobius strip*4 to represent the imaginary concept of Infinity. But, literally & in reality, its just a finite strip of paper folded-over into a single surface topographic system, where you can draw a line, but never come to an edge. In another sense, the Mobius represents a seemingly impossible object, like a Klein Bottle*5.

I don't know about you, but I don't conceive of the postulated First Cause as a thing existing in space-time, and bound by the rules of Reality. Instead, it was imagined by the ancient philosophers as an Ideal solution to the seemingly impossible notion of Infinite Regress in a finite world.


*1. Symbol : a thing that represents or stands for something else, especially a material object representing something abstract.

*2. Infinity : a state or quality, not a specific quantity

*3. A FOLDED FIGURE EIGHT, representing a never-ending circle
infinity-png-picture-royalty-free-download-figure-eight-clip-art-11563005829xwysy49yeu.png
*4. A FOLDED CIRCULAR STRIP, representing a single-edged geometric surface with only one side
e-mobius.jpg
*5. A FOLDED FOUR-DIMENSIONAL SURFACE, with no inside or outside
klein-glass-bottle_400x333.jpg