Is there really any problem with an infinate regresion of universes?
April 2, 2015 at 10:59 am
(This post was last modified: April 2, 2015 at 11:08 am by ReptilianPeon.
Edit Reason: Just found a radio interview with Rodger Penrose...
)
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).
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).
