Infinite Regress Arguments

The structure of infinite regress arguments in various areas of philosophy. @PhiloofAlexandria

[lkdonovan]

Very grateful for these videos, you're a pleasure to listen to Prof. Bonevac

[yehoshuafuchs]

I have only studied philosophy from ancient Jewish texts like the Maimonides, Rav Saadia Gaon’s Beliefs and Opinions, and the Book of Principles. (Two of which were originally written in Arabic, but I learn the Hebrew translations.)All written roughly 600-1000 years ago. And I found it very interesting to hear these concepts discussed in modern terms and language. Thank you.

[robertstevens]

It's a very interesting idea, a domain of unique objects each susceptive of the same binary relation! I can't think of any examples right now, but ...I like your shirt!

[nullspark]

Something seemed really familiar about the three premises you introduce, and then it dawned on me... These are basically the Peano axioms defining the natural numbers. You have a collection of things (the set N of all naturals), which is nonempty (contains 0), there there is a relation defined such that each element of N is related to another element of N (the successor function), and finally that there must be some element which no other element in N relates to (i.e. 0 is not the successor of any other natural number)

[rhoharane]

The slow zoom is really distracting.
But the cut to a zoomed view of the board where it was relevant is appreciated!

[hennessyhd]

what a legend. even his cat likes his way of teaching philosophy

[avimei]

Thank you so much for clearing this for me. Now I can believe in a pantheon of gods

[vitusschafftlein]

I have a question on the formal side of the argument. With the third premise, you are establishing the relational poperty of asymmetry (and, consequently, of irreflexivity). But are asymmetry and seriality sufficient for the argument to work? What about transitivity? Am I missing a relational property you establish in your argument? Greetings from Münster, Germany!

[simon]

Thank you for clearing that up! It's often used as a trump card by religious speakers without people realizing that they are making several assumptions.

[jxmbusab]

"Doesn't make any sense" doesn't seem a particularly rigorous way of dispensing with descending infinite regress. "There can't be an infinite regress of causes because that makes my brain hurt" isn't persuasive.

[waldwassermann]

Truth is one; it is just that it is not good to be alone.

[carsonianthegreat]

This is Thomas Aquinas’ (from Aristotle) distinction between essentially ordered and accidentally ordered causation, correct? Accidentally/Linearly ordered series can be infinite, but Essentially/Hierarchically ordered series cannot

[peterrosqvist]

I think that first relation is God, what is outside the domain. I think this is also why to name God is to reduce God to something God is not. Just like the Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao.

[carsonianthegreat]

This reads a lot like Aquinas’ 2nd Way argument.

[gabrielduran]

Isn't it a false analogy to compare infinite turtles vs infinite causes?

Not all causal relations are active or actual but instead potential. For example, once we light a match, the match causes a flame, but once the flame goes out we no longer say that this particular match stick causes a flame but that this particular match stick caused a flame. In other words the two objects no longer stand in a direct actual immediate relation to each other but the causal relation is now theoretical or in the history of our memories and can potentially happen again with other objects of the same kind.

Whereas the resting turtles seem to all be there at once infinitely many which seems like an absurdity.

[grantdm]

Isn't this Aquinas's argument for the existence of God; the first object that exists outside of our causal domain must be God. To put it in a modern way, whatever existed before the big bang -- before space and time itself -- must be God! Of course skeptics will retort that nothing requires that the first object to be God, which is fine, but if you can accept broader definitions of God, then yes God exists per Aquinas.

[FarwanIrfan]

Then what about the actions of God? Since God always could create one thing after another, then this premise requires that an infinite regress is at the very least possibble isnt it?

[log]

Summary:
🌎
🐘🐘
🐢🐢🐢
🐢🐢🐢🐢
🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢
🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢
👽

[SamuelJFord]

Thank you for these videos! You are very engaging. Is this essentially the same as Godel's incompleteness theorems?

[shahfaisal]

It's about to understand a loop a loop which has two infinity infinite back and infinite front and has no beginning if the univers has no beginning than its a loop because a loop has no beginning and if that's true we were be stuck at that loop and never get out of it we will never reach at the present because of no beginning thus we were be still waiting