RE: Is there really any problem with an infinate regresion of universes?
April 5, 2015 at 1:06 am
(This post was last modified: April 5, 2015 at 1:34 am by Anomalocaris.)
(April 4, 2015 at 3:45 pm)alpha male Wrote:(April 4, 2015 at 1:43 pm)Chuck Wrote: That is. The event which precipitated our universe has experience infinite number of prior occurrences, without any discernibly different initiation event.
No, it isn't. An infinite regress is a series in which each proposition is dependent on the one before it. You're describing propositions in parallel which are independent of each other, but each dependent on another common proposition. They're not the same thing.
Yes, it is. Neither theory nor observation insist the supposedly parallel propositions as you put it must be really independent of each other. All that is required by the fact that our universe appears to be headed towards an end state very different from its initial state is each successive proposition is not required to actually be made from the end state of another.
Think of an infinite foam. Let's say if any bubble in the foam pops, it would destabilize an adjacent bubble and cause that to pop as well. So each popping of a bubble is attributable to the popping of another bubble in an infinite regression. Yet the popping of any particular bubble does not require its antecedent to unpop. If one observes a bubble pop, but see no indication of it unpopping in order to pop again, that does not disprove the notion the original popping is part of infinite regression.
In a like manner, the fact that our universe appear to be headed towards some end state wildly different from what appeared to have been its beginning state does not show its beginning is therefore not part of infinite regression.
