Religionists like to claim that there can't be infinite regresses. Therefore the universe must have been starting by the favourite deity because an infinite regress would mean we cannot get to 'now'. However, I'm struggling to find any problems with an infinite regress when it comes to the universe. Basically, I don't see why there can't be an infinite number of (past) universes. There are a few models relating to the death of the universe. For example, one suggests that black holes will force the universe to begin to contract again and then the universe will be reborn.

So, I was wondering:

1. Do you think having an infinite regress actually a problem for the universe we are in?

2. Is an infinite regress really as big of an issue as religionists like to claim it is?

Edit: Rodger Penrose has talked about a 'cyclical universe' [url=Edit: Rodger Penrose has talked about a 'cyclical universe' here (i.e. an infinite cycle of universes dying and being born) here (i.e. an infinite cycle of universes dying and being born).

I admit infinite regress is an extrapolation From the known into the unknown if christians admit God is an extrapolation from bullshit into bullshit

1. Infinite regress is no more of a problem for a universe than it is for a deity. In both cases we're speaking of an unmoved mover that underlies change as an unchanging substratum. The difficulty is connecting the unmoved to the moved in such a way that change has not occurred, otherwise the unmoved is moveable. The elephant in the room is time. What is it?
2. I don't see it as logically impossible, though it would seem logically inconceivable.

Um yes, if you are going to claim complexity to explain complexity that is infinite regress.

However infinity does not need to result in using more complex to explain the complex.

It is no different than drawing a finite line on paper knowing mathematically it can have in infinite number of points between it the two ends.

It certainly can be an ongoing cycle like seasons changing, but that would not need something more complex to explain the complexity anymore winter is more complex to spring. It would simply be an eb and flow.

Laurence Krauss clearly states what nature is telling us, complexity is an outcome, not a starting point.

Even with the freaky things QM and string theory suggest, "all this" will still collapse to nothing, at that point it could be another QM twitch would lead to another big bang. But that would again, would be a natural process not needing more complex things to explain it anymore than winter is more complex than spring.

(April 2, 2015 at 10:59 am)MrNoMorePropaganda Wrote: 1. Do you think having an infinite regress actually a problem for the universe we are in?

Yes. According to current observations and models, the universe we are in will continue expanding, and eventually reach heat death (big freeze). To have an infinite regress of such a universe you need a reset mechanism. Oscillating universe models (big crunch) have been tried, but observations haven't matched with any of those models yet.

why do you suppose infinite regress means "our" universe, whatever that means, fluctuates?

The regress is still there if each universe has a definite beginning, and can have an variable and in principle open ended evolution, but the instantiation of the universes has no definite beginning.

(April 4, 2015 at 12:01 pm)Chuck Wrote: why do you suppose infinite regress means "our" universe, whatever that means, fluctuates?  

The regress is still there if each universe has a definite beginning, and can have an variable and in principle open ended evolution, but the instantiation of the universes has no definite beginning.

Do you mean that each individual universe has a beginning but that the substratum from which one comes, whether we think of such an entity as physical or not, simply "is" in a way that eliminates "was" and "will be"? If motion is without beginning or end, won't we have on our hands something like eternal recurrences where all possibilities that can be exhausted are in fact so, ad infinitum?

(April 4, 2015 at 12:01 pm)Chuck Wrote: why do you suppose infinite regress means "our" universe, whatever that means, fluctuates?

Because, if universes begin with a big bang from a singularity, as is commonly (but not universally) accepted, then the current universe must necessarily collapse in order for the next one to begin.

Philosophically, there's nothing prohibiting eternal universes. But, our observations so far indicate otherwise.

(April 4, 2015 at 12:26 pm)alpha male Wrote:

(April 4, 2015 at 12:01 pm)Chuck Wrote: why do you suppose infinite regress means "our" universe, whatever that means, fluctuates?

Because, if universes begin with a big bang from a singularity, as is commonly (but not universally) accepted, then the current universe must necessarily collapse in order for the next one to begin.

Philosophically, there's nothing prohibiting eternal universes. But, our observations so far indicate otherwise.

I suppose there's always the possibility that other universes are created in black holes, our own itself contained in a region that to outside observers appears in one small corner of their universe. Of course, this doesn't approach a solution to the Alpha. 

(April 4, 2015 at 12:26 pm)alpha male Wrote:

(April 4, 2015 at 12:01 pm)Chuck Wrote: why do you suppose infinite regress means "our" universe, whatever that means, fluctuates?

Because, if universes begin with a big bang from a singularity, as is commonly (but not universally) accepted, then the current universe must necessarily collapse in order for the next one to begin.

Philosophically, there's nothing prohibiting eternal universes. But, our observations so far indicate otherwise.

There is no observatable data that show the universe began to exist. The only observation is that the universe was once hot, dense, and very small. Some people and scientist extrapolate this information to a beginning without a proper justification because the known physicals laws are no longer valid at such dense hot states . The scientist will freely admit this.

Plus, OP was talking more about the concept of infinite regress than can our universe be a product of infinite regress. I don't see any physically wrong with infinite regress.